United States
Department
of Agriculture
Forest Service
Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Resource Bulletin
RMRS-RB-13
The Four Corners Timber
Harvest and Forest Products
Industry, 2007
June 2012
Steven W. Hayes, Todd A. Morgan, Erik C. Berg, Jean M.
Daniels and Mike T. Thompson
Hayes, Steven W.; Morgan, Todd A.; Berg, Erik C.; Daniels, Jean M.; Thompson, Mike T. 2012. The Four Corners timber
harvest and forest products industry, 2007. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 61 p.
Abstract
This report traces the flow of timber harvested in the “Four Corners” States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah)
during calendar year 2007, describes the composition and operations of the region’s primary forest products industry, and
quantifies volumes and uses of wood fiber. Historical wood products industry changes are discussed, as well as trends in
timber harvest, production, and sales of primary wood products.
Keywords: forest economics, lumber production, mill residue, primary forest products, timber products
Authors
Steven W. Hayes is a Research Forester, Todd A. Morgan is Director of Forest Industry Research, and Erik
C. Berg is a Research Forester, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, The University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana.
Jean M. Daniels is a Research Forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, Oregon.
Mike T. Thompson is a Forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Ogden, Utah.
Cover: Map of Four Corners facilities, 2007.
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing
information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify
the publication title and series number.
Fort Collins Service Center
Telephone
FAX
E-mail
Web site
Mailing address
(970) 498-1392
(970) 498-1122
rschneider@fs.fed.us
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications
Publications Distribution
Rocky Mountain Research Station
240 West Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Research Highlights
• During calendar year 2007, more than 210.4 million board feet (MMBF)
of timber was harvested from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
Most (55.9 percent) of the harvested volume came from tribal and nonindustrial private timberlands, while 40.9 percent came from National Forests. Ponderosa pine was the leading species harvested for timber in the
Four Corners States during 2007, accounting for 34.7 percent of the total.
Lodgepole pine accounted for 24.1 percent, followed by spruces and Douglas-fir at 12.9 and 9.1 percent, respectively.
• During 2007, the Four Corners were net importers of timber, with less than
1 percent (983 MBF) of the regional harvest imported for processing from
other States. Mills in the Four Corners imported a total of 12.5 MMBF during 2007, while total exports by Four Corners mills were slightly less than
11.6 MMBF.
• Timber-processing capacity (i.e., the volume of timber that could be used
by existing timber processors if demand for products were firm and sufficient raw material were available) in the Four Corners during 2007 was
approximately 351 MMBF, Scribner. Thus, approximately 60 percent of
timber-processing capacity in the region was utilized in 2007.
• This report identified 132 primary timber processing facilities active during 2007 in the Four Corners. These facilities included 62 sawmills, 35 log
home or house log manufacturers, 15 log furniture producers, 6 post and
pole facilities, 6 viga and latilla producers, and 8 other facilities.
• During 2007, production of lumber and other sawn products exceeded 234
MMBF lumber tally. Lumber production in Arizona was 55 MMBF, Colorado was 116 MMBF, New Mexico was about 40 MMBF, and Utah’s lumber production was nearly 23 MMBF.
• Four Corners timber processors produced 259,853 bone dry units (BDU)
of residue during 2007, of which just 9,843 BDU (4 percent) went unused.
Sawmills generated 233,315 BDU—90 percent of all mill residues in the
region.
• The Four Corners primary wood product sales value (f.o.b. the producing
mill), including mill residues, totaled nearly $197 million during 2007. A
little over $135 million (69 percent) of sales were within the Four Corners
States, and 44 percent ($86 million) of all sales were lumber and other sawn
products.
Contents
Research Highlights..........................................................................................i
Introduction.......................................................................................................1
Four Corners Regional Summary...................................................................1
Historic Overview............................................................................................2
Timber Harvest...............................................................................................2
Timber Flow and Mill Receipts........................................................................3
Forest Products Industry Composition and Operations..................................5
Mill Residue: Quantity, Types, and Use..........................................................6
Forest Products Sales and Employment........................................................7
Arizona...............................................................................................................8
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use.......................................................................8
Forest Industry Sectors.................................................................................15
Capacity and Utilization................................................................................19
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses.......................................................19
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales................................................20
Colorado..........................................................................................................21
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use.....................................................................22
Forest Industry Sectors.................................................................................27
Capacity and Utilization................................................................................32
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses.......................................................33
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales................................................33
New Mexico......................................................................................................35
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use.....................................................................35
Forest Industry Sectors.................................................................................41
Capacity and Utilization................................................................................45
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses.......................................................45
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales................................................46
Utah..................................................................................................................47
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use.....................................................................47
Forest Industry Sectors.................................................................................52
Capacity and Utilization................................................................................57
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses.......................................................57
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales................................................59
References.......................................................................................................60
Introduction
This report details timber harvest and describes the composition and operations
of the primary forest products industry in the “Four Corners” States (i.e., Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) during calendar year 2007. The report focuses
on trends and changes in timber harvest levels in the forest products industry since
the 1990s. For historical perspective, some discussion is offered of industry changes throughout the last half of the 20th century.
Timber used in the direct manufacture of products is the focus of this report.
Products directly manufactured from timber are referred to as “primary products”
and include lumber, posts and poles, house logs, log furniture, vigas and latillas.
Reconstituted products made from chipping or grinding timber, as well as products
from mill residue (i.e., bark, sawdust, log ends, chips, and planer shavings) generated in the production of primary products, are also included. These reconstituted
primary products include excelsior, wood pellets, bark products, and fuelwood.
Derivative, or “secondary” products (e.g., window frames, doors, trusses, and furniture) made from primary products are not included in this report.
The major source of data for this report was a census of primary forest products
facilities in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah and mills in adjacent States
that received timber from the Four Corners States during calendar year 2007.
Firms were identified through telephone directories, internet queries, directories
of the forest products industries (Lockwood-Post 2008; Random Lengths 2008),
and with the assistance of State forestry agencies and the mills themselves. Firms
cooperating in the Four Corners census, including out-of-State mills, processed
virtually all of the commercial timber harvested from Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah in 2007.
This report is the direct result of a cooperative effort between The University
of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) and the USDA
Forest Service, Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis (IW-FIA) Program.
Together, BBER and Forest Service research stations have been conducting periodic mill censuses in the Rocky Mountains for over 30 years. The Forest Industries
Data Collection System (FIDACS) was developed by BBER and IW-FIA to collect, compile and make available State- and county-level information on the operations of the forest products industry and the timber it uses. The FIDACS uses
a written questionnaire or phone interview of forest products manufacturers to
collect the following information for each facility for a given calendar year: production capacity and employment; volume of raw material received by county and
ownership; species of timber received; finished product volumes, types, sales values, and market locations; and utilization and marketing of manufacturing residue.
Information collected through the FIDACS is processed, analyzed, and stored at
the BBER in Missoula, Montana. Additional information is available by request;
however, individual firm-level data are confidential and will not be released.
Four Corners Regional Summary
This chapter discusses the Four Corners as a whole, providing a historical overview, as well as information on the forest products industry and timber harvest in
2007. It presents ownership and species composition of harvested timber, types of
timber products harvested and processed, as well as movement of timber within
the Four Corners and between the region and other States. Timber-processing and
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 1
production capacities, utilization of mill residues, and forest products sales and
employment are also discussed at the regional level.
Historic Overview
Following World War II, with strong housing markets and public policy encouraging timber production on National Forests, timber harvest for industrial products
in the Four Corners States increased from about 700 million board feet (MMBF,
Scribner log scale) annually during the early 1950s to a peak of approximately
1,000 MMBF in the late 1960s. During the 1970s and 1980s, harvest volumes
dropped somewhat with harvest during the late 1980s averaging about 850 MMBF
annually. Timber harvest from the region declined dramatically during the 1990s,
caused largely by decreases in the harvest from National Forests. National Forest
timber harvests in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah followed the course
of most Western States, declining due to threatened and endangered species, appeals and litigation directed at Federal timber sales, and lower Federal budget
levels.
In Arizona and New Mexico, the listing of the Mexican spotted owl had a profound downward impact on National Forest timber harvest levels. The Mexican
spotted owl was listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
in March of 1993. In August of 1995, a Federal judge enjoined the logging of
new timber sales on National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico pending development of a recovery plan for the owl (Silver and others v. Thomas and others
1995). Between 1990 and 1996, harvest from Arizona National Forests dropped
from 300 MMBF annually to about 28 MMBF, and harvest from New Mexico
National Forests fell from about 125 MMBF to less than 20 MMBF annually. Most
of the material harvested during the period was for fuelwood, not industrial timber
products. The lifting of the injunction in December 1996 resulted in increases in
National Forest timber offerings in 1997 and 1998. The cut from Arizona National
Forests increased to about 61 MMBF in 1997 and 63 MMBF in 1998; the cut
from New Mexico National Forests increased slightly to 23 MMBF in 1997 and
30 MMBF in 1998.
Declines in National Forest timber offerings have negatively impacted both
Colorado’s and Utah’s industry as well, leading to substantially lower total harvest. Though not as sharp nor abrupt as in Arizona and New Mexico, reductions
in National Forest timber harvest have significantly accelerated closures and have
yielded very low levels of capacity utilization at sawmills—the largest timber processing sector in the two States—and played a part in the closure of the two oriented strand board (OSB) operations in Colorado. The actual number of timber
processors in the two States decreased from approximately 182 facilities during
2002 to 91facilities in 2007. Decreases in facilities occurred in all sectors but most
conspicuously in the log home and log furniture industries, where Colorado ranked
second behind Montana in 2002, with Utah fourth in value of output from log
home plants in the Western United States.
Timber Harvest
Harvest volumes presented in this report for calendar year 2007 came from
the FIDACS census of Four Corners and out-of-State mills receiving timber harvested from the region. When available, similar timber harvest characterizations
for the individual States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) were used
2
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table 4C-1: Four Corners timber harvest by ownership class, 2002 and 2007 (source: Morgan and others
2006).
2002
2007
MBF Scribner
Percentage
of harvest
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of harvest
234,456
72.5
117,708
55.9
134,840
41.7
23,714
11.3
99,616
30.8
93,994
44.7
Public timberland
89,105
27.5
92,700
44.1
National Forest
84,536
26.1
86,036
40.9
4,569
1.4
6,664
3.2
Ownership class
Private and tribal timberland
Tribal
Private
Other public
All owners
323,561
100
210,408
100
for comparison. Periodic State-level reports (Wilson and Spencer 1967; Setzer and
Wilson 1970; Setzer 1971 a,b; Green and Setzer 1974; Setzer and Barrett 1977;
Setzer and Shupe 1977; Setzer and Throssell 1977a,b; McLain 1985; McLain 1988;
McLain 1989; Keegan and others 1995; Keegan and others 2001a,b; Morgan and
others 2006) provided the bulk of historic timber harvest information. Published
timber harvest reports for recent years were not available, with the exception of
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) forest products offerings and USDA Forest
Service annual “cut and sold” reports. Small differences may exist between the
numbers reported here and those in BLM and Forest Service reports. These differences are due to varying reporting units and conversion factors, rounding error,
scaling discrepancies between sellers and buyers, and other reporting variations.
During calendar year 2007, more than 210.4 MMBF of timber was harvested
from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. This harvest volume represents
less than 0.1 percent of the approximately 169.5 billion board feet of sawtimber inventory on nonreserved timberlands in the four States (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, FIDO 2009). Timber harvested from Four Corners timberland and
manufactured into wood products came from three broad ownership classes: tribal
lands, nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land, and public lands. Most (55.9 percent) of the harvested volume came from tribal and NIPF timberlands, while
40.9 percent came from National Forests (table 4C-1). Ponderosa pine was the
leading species harvested for timber in the Four Corners States during 2007, accounting for 34.7 percent of the total (table 4C-2). Lodgepole pine accounted for
24.1 percent, followed by aspen and spruces at 13.3 and 12.9 percent, respectively.
Sawlogs were the leading component of the timber harvest in the Four Corners
(table 4C-3); at 83 percent, no other product type came close in harvested volume.
Trees harvested for fiber logs and industrial fuelwood contributed 7.2 percent to
the total, while house logs accounted for 5.9 percent of the harvest.
Timber Flow and Mill Receipts
During 2007, the Four Corners were net importers of timber, with less than
one-half percent (964 MBF) of the regional harvest imported for processing (table 4C-4). Of this imported volume, over 81 percent (almost 781 MBF) was house
logs. There was some volume traded and utilized between the States in the Four
Corners region, but no identifiable volume was exported from the Four Corners
States for processing in 2007. By ownership, timber from private lands was imported in the largest volumes, with timber from National Forest next. This flow of
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 3
Table 4C-2: Four Corners timber harvest by species, 2002 and 2007 (source: Morgan and others 2006).
2002
Species
MBF Scribner
2007
Percentage
of harvest
MBF Scribner
Percentage
of harvest
Ponderosa pine
186,955
57.8
73,041
34.7
Lodgepole pine
21,822
6.7
50,648
24.1
Aspen
20,399
6.3
28,088
13.3
Spruces
46,850
14.5
27,057
12.9
Douglas-fir
30,165
9.3
19,065
9.1
Firs
16,882
5.2
12,351
5.9
Other species
489
a
All species
a
323,562
0.2
158
100
0.1
210,408
100
Other species include juniper, other softwoods, and hardwoods other than aspen.
Table 4C-3: Four Corners timber harvest by product, 2002 and 2007 (source: Morgan and others 2006).
2002
2007
Product
MBF Scribner
Percentage
of harvest
MBF Scribner
Percentage
of harvest
Sawlogs
279,317
86.3
174,629
83.0
Fiber logs and industrial fuelwood
14,763
4.6
15,144
7.2
House logs
20,695
6.4
12,495
5.9
Posts and poles
4,104
1.3
5,497
2.6
Vigas
3,655
1.1
2,368
1.1
Other products
1,029
a
All products
a
0.3
323,562
275
100
0.1
210,408
Other products include furniture logs, pilings, and utility poles.
100
Table 4C-4: Four Corners timber products imports and exportsa, 2007.
Timber product
Imports
Exports
Net imports
(net exports)
---Thousand board feet, Scribner--Sawlogs
3,536
3,431
105
House logs
2,220
1,445
775
6,747
6,644
103
12,503
11,520
983
Other products
All products
a
b
Imports and exports are with other States and North American countries.
Other products include post and poles, fiber logs, firewood, furniture logs, vigas and industrial fuel
wood.
b
timber into the region created a difference in the volume of timber harvested from
the Four Corners and the volume received by the region’s mills. The large majority of timber used by primary forest products firms in the Four Corners came from
within the four-State region. Additional volume came from Idaho, Montana, and
Oregon, with some smaller volumes from Wyoming and Canada.
While the 2007 harvest exceeded 210.4 MMBF, total receipts by Four Corners
mills were slightly more than 211 MMBF, a volume equivalent to 101 percent
4
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table 4C-5: Timber received by the Four Corners primary forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
Fuelwood/
bioenergy
House logs
Post/pole
Other productsb
All products
-----------------Thousand board feet, Scribner------------------
Private and tribal timberland
104,270
2,402
3,089
1,942
6,473
118,175
Private
82,940
802
2,680
1,567
6,473
94,461
Tribal
21,330
1,600
409
375
-
23,714
Public timberland
70,463
3,625
10,182
3,555
5,391
93,216
National Forest
67,826
3,625
10,114
2,430
2,492
86,487
Other ownersa
2,637
68
1,125
2,899
6,729
13,271
5,497
11,863
211,391
All owners
174,734
6,027
-----------------Percentage of product by ownership----------------
Private and tribal timberland
59.7
39.9
23.3
35.3
54.6
55.9
Private
47.5
13.3
20.2
28.5
54.6
44.7
Tribal
12.2
26.5
3.1
6.8
Public timberland
40.3
60.1
76.7
64.7
45.4
44.1
National Forest
38.8
60.1
Other ownersa
1.5
All owners
82.7
-
11.2
76.2
44.2
21.0
40.9
-
0.5
20.5
24.4
3.2
2.9
6.3
2.6
5.6
a
Other owners include other public ownerships and Canadian imports.
b
Other products include logs for log furniture, vigas, latillas, and fiber logs.
100
of the harvest. Sawlogs accounted for the vast majority (83 percent) of timber
received by Four Corners mills (table 4C-5), followed by house logs (6 percent).
The NIPF landowners supplied the largest share (45 percent) of timber received by
mills in the four States, followed by National Forest System (NFS) lands (41 percent) and then tribal owners (11 percent). Timber-processing capacity (the volume
of timber that could be used by existing timber processors if demand for products
were firm and sufficient raw material were available) in the Four Corners during
2007 was approximately 351 MMBF, Scribner. Thus, approximately 60 percent of
timber-processing capacity in the region was utilized in 2007.
Forest Products Industry Composition and Operations
The FIDACS census identified 132 primary timber processing facilities active
during 2007 in the Four Corners. These facilities included 62 sawmills, 35 log
home or house log manufacturers, 15 log furniture producers, 6 post and pole
facilities, 6 viga and latilla producers, and 8 other facilities. Colorado and Utah
had the most facilities and the largest shares of the log home and log furniture sectors. Arizona and New Mexico had fewer facilities but more of the viga and latilla
sector.
Primary timber processors in the Four Corners produced an array of products
including: dimension lumber, board and shop lumber, mine timbers, railroad ties,
pallet stock, dunnage, excelsior, posts, poles, vigas, latillas, finished house logs,
log homes, and log furniture, as well as wood pellets, fuelwood, bark, mulch,
and pulp chips from mill residues. During 2007, production of lumber and other
sawn products exceeded 233.7 MMBF lumber tally. State contributions included Colorado (116 MMBF), Arizona (55 MMBF), New Mexico (40 MMBF), and
Utah (23 MMBF). Production of house logs, vigas, and latillas totaled more than
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 5
5.4 million lineal feet (MMLF), and more than 2.3 million pieces of log furniture,
and posts and poles were produced by facilities in the Four Corners.
Mill Residue: Quantity, Types, and Use
A substantial portion of the wood fiber, including bark processed by primary forest product plants, ends up as mill residue. Three types of wood residues
are typically generated by the primary wood products industry: coarse or chippable residue consisting of edging, slabs, trim, log ends, and pieces of veneer; fine
residue consisting primarily of planer shavings and sawdust; and bark. The 2007
census collected information on volumes and uses of mill residue. Actual residue
volumes, reported in bone-dry units (BDU), were obtained from facilities that sold
all or most of their residues. All mills reported how their residues were used on a
percentage basis. One BDU is the equivalent of 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood.
Four Corners timber processors produced 259,853 BDUs of residue during
2007, of which just 9,843 BDUs (3.8 percent) went unused (table 4C-6). Coarse
residues were the region’s largest residue component (55 percent of all residues),
with just over 2 percent going unused. About 40 percent of coarse residue was used
by the pulp and board sector, 35 percent went to the energy sector, and an additional 23 percent went to other uses. Fine residue made up the second largest component (28 percent) in 2007, with sawdust comprising 18.5 percent and shavings
9.4 percent. All but 5,140 BDUs (7 percent) of fine residue were used, primarily as
animal bedding and mulch. Four Corners facilities generated 44,087 BDUs of bark
while processing timber in 2007, of which all but 3 percent was utilized. About
55 percent of bark was used as mulch, while 23 percent went to energy. During
2007, sawmills generated 233,315 BDUs—90 percent of all mill residues in the
region. Residue volume factors, which express mill residue generated per unit of
lumber produced, were derived from production and residue output volumes provided by mills (table 4C-7).
Table 4C-6: Production and disposition of Four Corners mill residues, 2007.
Residue type
Total utilized
Pulp and
board
Mulch/
bedding
Energy
Unspecified
use
Total
produced
Unused
----------------------------Bone-dry unitsa--------------------------------
Coarse
140,066
57,300
50,062
-
32,704
3,323
143,389
67,237
-
22,512
42,281
2,444
5,140
72,377
Sawdust
43,222
-
16,005
25,195
2,022
4,856
48,078
Planer shavings
24,015
-
6,507
17,086
422
284
24,299
42,707
-
10,213
24,107
8,387
1,380
44,087
250,010
57,300
82,787
66,388
43,535
9,843
259,853
Fine
Bark
All residues
----------------------------Percentage of residue type by use--------------------------------
Coarse
97.7
40.0
34.9
0.0
22.8
2.3
55.2
Fine
92.9
0.0
31.1
58.4
3.4
7.1
27.9
Sawdust
89.9
0.0
33.3
52.4
4.2
10.1
18.5
Planer shavings
98.8
0.0
26.8
70.3
1.7
1.2
9.4
Bark
96.9
0.0
23.2
54.7
19.0
3.1
All residues
96.2
22.1
31.9
25.5
16.8
3.8
a
Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.
6
17.0
100
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table 4C-7: Four Corners sawmill residue factors, 2002 and 2007 (source: Morgan
and others 2006).
2002
2007
BDU per MBF
BDU per MBF
Coarse
0.56
0.56
Sawdust
0.19
0.19
Planer shavings
0.16
0.10
Bark
0.28
0.17
Total
1.19
1.02
Type of residue
Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated for every 1,000
board feet of lumber manufactured.
a
Forest Products Sales and Employment
Mills responding to the FIDACS survey summarized their calendar year 2007
shipments of finished wood products, providing information on volume, sales
value, and geographic destination. Mills usually distributed their products either
through their own distribution channels or through independent wholesalers and
selling agents. Because of subsequent transactions, the geographic destination reported here may not reflect the final delivery points of shipments.
The Four Corners primary wood product sales value (f.o.b. the producing mill),
including mill residues, totaled nearly $197 million during 2007 (table 4C-8). A
little over $135 million (69 percent) of these sales were within the Four Corners
States, and 44 percent ($86 million) of all sales were lumber and other sawn products. Other products, which include excelsior, firewood, and mill residue, accounted for $50 million (25.6 percent of total sales). Colorado led the region with more
than $104 million in sales, of which approximately $30 million came from the
other products sector. Total sales for Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah ranged from
$26 to $38 million for each State (tables A18, N17, U16).
While the forest products industry continues to provide substantial employment
opportunities in the Southwest, the number of workers has declined radically over
the past 5 years. Forest products firms, including logging companies, employed
about 2,700 people in the Four Corners area in 2007, compared to 3,800 in 2002.
Of this total, approximately 1,000 individuals were employed in logging in 2007
(5.0 workers per MMBF harvested), compared to 1,600 in 2002 (QCEW 2004,
2007; REIS 2004, 2007). Primary timber processing facilities employed 1,700
workers in 2007 (8.3 workers per MMBF consumed) vs. 2,200 in 2002.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 7
Table 4C-8: Destination and sales value of Four Corners primary wood products and mill residues, 2007.
Product
Within
4-Corner
States
Other
Rocky
Mtn
Statesa
Far Westb
Northeastc
Southd
North
Centrale
Mexico,
Canada,
or otherf
Total
-----------------------------------Thousand 2007 dollars-----------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers,
and other sawn products
68,159
3,554
1,280
139
3,371
5,236
4,547
86,286
House logs and log
homes
25,463
1,656
504
862
6,604
1,347
40
36,476
Posts, poles, vigas,
latillas, and log furniture
16,192
1,985
1,765
1,166
1,374
1,111
-
23,593
Other productsg
25,396
2,924
7,245
386
8,328
3,881
2,186
50,346
10,119
10,794
2,553
19,677
11,575
6,773
$196,701
Total
135,210
-------------------------Percentage of regional sales by product--------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers,
and other sawn products
50.4
35.1
11.9
5.4
17.1
45.2
67.1
43.9
House logs and log
homes
18.8
16.4
4.7
33.8
33.6
11.6
0.6
18.5
Posts, poles, vigas,
latillas, and log furniture
12.0
19.6
16.4
45.7
7.0
9.6
-
12.0
Other productsg
18.8
28.9
67.1
15.1
42.3
33.5
32.3
25.6
Total
68.7
5.1
5.5
1.3
10.0
5.9
3.4
a
Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
b
Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
100
Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
c
South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
d
North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin.
e
Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the United States.
f
g
Other products include excelsior, mill residues, mulch, and fuel pellets; they do not include paper products.
Arizona
This chapter reviews Arizona’s 2007 timber harvest and forest products industry
activities and changes that occurred since the 2002 industry census conducted by
Morgan and others (2006). Details of timber harvest, flow, and use are followed by
descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity and utilization statistics,
and mill residue characteristics. The chapter concludes with information on primary wood products industry sales by Arizona mills.
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use
In 2007, Arizona had approximately 3.4 million acres of nonreserved timberland
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2009), with National Forests accounting
for 71 percent, private and tribal owners accounting for 28 percent, and other public
agencies accounting for the remaining 1 percent (table A1). All private timberland
8
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table A1: Arizona nonreserved timberland by ownership class (source:
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2008).
Ownership class
Percentage of
nonreserved
timberland
Thousand acres
National Forest
Private and tribal
Other public
Total
2,395
71
959
28
31
1
3,385
100
was classified as NIPF timberland. With the exception of several Native American
tribes, Arizona had no large tracts of timberland owned by entities operating primary wood processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on nonreserved timberlands
was estimated at 5.3 billion cubic feet or approximately 29.8 billion board feet
Scribner in 2008 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2009).
Timber Harvest
Arizona’s 2007 timber harvest was 53.8 MMBF Scribner, only 42 percent of
the 2002 harvest, and about 15 percent of the annual harvest during the late 1980s
(Keegan and others 2001a). The decline in Arizona’s total annual timber harvest
since 1990 was largely due to the decline in National Forest timber harvest. The
major factor that contributed to the harvest increase from 1998 to 2002 was the
salvage of 90 MMBF of dead, mostly fire-killed timber, accounting for 70 percent of the 2002 harvest volume. In 1998 dead trees accounted for just 3 percent
(2.4 MMBF) of the total harvest. Although substantial acreages of both public
and tribal forests burned between 1998 and 2002, tribal landowners were able to
respond relatively quickly and harvested over 82 MMBF of fire-killed timber in
2002. Once the areas affected by the large fires were salvaged, the annual harvest
fell to below pre-fire levels.
As National Forest and total timber harvest in the State declined, a disproportionate and diminishing share of Arizona’s timber harvest came from National Forest
timberlands in recent years (table A2). In 1966, 1974, and 1984 National Forests
accounted for 60 percent or more of harvested volume (Setzer and Throssell 1977a;
McLain 1988), whereas in 2002 and 2007 National Forests accounted for 16 and
40 percent of harvest volume, respectively (Morgan and others 2006). National
Forests provided the majority (93 percent) of house logs harvested in 2007, but
tribal and NIPF landowners provided the majority of sawlogs and other products
Table A2: Proportion of Arizona timber harvest by ownership class, selected years (sources: Setzer 1971; Setzer and
Throssell 1977; McLain 1988; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Ownership class
1966
1974
1984
1998
2002
2007
----------Percentage of harvest------------
Private and tribal timberland
25.0
41.0
33.5
63.0
84.4
59.0
1.0
-
33.5
3.0
1.6
51.0
24.0
41.0
-
60.0
82.8
8.0
Public timberland
75.0
59.0
66.5
37.0
15.6
41.0
National Forest
75.0
59.0
66.2
37.0
15.6
40.0
Private
Tribal
Other public
All owners
-
-
100
100
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 0.3
100
100
100
1.0
100
9
Table A3: Arizona timber products harvested by ownership class, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
House logs
Other productsa
All products
----------------Thousand board feet, Scribner------------------
Private timberland
26,830
20
National Forest
21,141
2,800
Tribal timberland
State
350
All owners
51,121
444
27,294
407
175
21,723
10
1,600
4,410
-
-
437
2,219
350
53,777
---Percentage of harvested product by ownership---
Private timberland
52.5
4.6
20.0
50.8
National Forest
41.4
93.1
7.9
40.4
Tribal timberland
5.5
2.3
72.1
8.2
State
0.7
-
-
0.7
95.1
0.8
4.1
All owners
a
100
Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, and viga logs.
(table A3). Sawlogs accounted for 95 percent (51 MMBF) of the total volume
harvested.
Historically, 80 percent or more of the State’s annual timber harvest came
from three counties: Apache, Coconino, and Navajo. In 2007, Apache County led
Arizona’s timber harvest with 59 percent of total volume. Coconino County followed with 27 percent (table A4). In 2002 Navajo led with 50 percent followed by
Gila and then Coconino County (Morgan and others 2006). In 1984, Apache led
followed by Coconino and Navajo (McLain 1988). In 1974, Coconino County led
the State with almost 38 percent of the harvest, followed by Navajo with 34 percent
and Apache with 19 percent (Setzer and Throssell 1977a). Similarly, Coconino
County was the largest timber producer in 1969, contributing 32 percent of the harvest, followed by Apache and Navajo with 25 and 23 percent, respectively (Setzer
1971a).
Table A4: Arizona timber harvest by county, selected years (sources: McLain 1988; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan
and others 2006).
County
1984
2002
2007
1984
---MBF Scribner---
1998
2002
2007
-------Percentage-------
Apache
171,128
15,641
6,350
31,610
44.7
20.5
5.0
58.8
Coconino
150,727
15,314
14,889
14,353
39.4
20.1
11.6
26.7
Gila
931
5,405
39,960
1,960
0.2
7.1
31.2
3.6
Graham
-
1,100
1,100
-
-
0.9
2.0
Greenlee
4,623
-
-
1.2
2.0
-
-
Maricopa
-
-
-
-
a
49.9
5.8
-
-
Navajo
Pima
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Total
10
1998
b
52,745
-
1,515
38,384
33
-
0
64,027
3,094
13.8
-
-
-
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
2,220
20
1,895
1,612
0.6
a
1.5
3.0
382,674
76,312
128,220
53,777
100
a
Less than 0.05 percent.
b
Percentage detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
48
50.3
100
100
100
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table A5: Proportion of Arizona timber harvest by species, selected years (sources: Setzer 1971; Setzer and Throssell 1977;
McLain 1988; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Species
1969a
1974a
1984
1998
2002
2007
--------------Percentage of harvest----------------
Ponderosa pine
74.2
69.6
90.6
87.5
94.8
86.4
Engelmann spruce
0.9
2.1
2.3
3.1
1.2
5.5
Dougles-fir
5.3
5.6
4.5
6.9
2.4
3.6
White fir
3.6
4.8
2.4
1.3
1.5
3.1
Pinyon pine, juniper, limber pine, aspen
16.0
All speciesb
17.9
100
0.2
100
1.2
100
< 0.05
100
1.4
100
a
Harvest data for 1969 and 1974 include fuelwood; 1984,1998, 2002, 2007 do not include fuelwood.
b
Percentage detail may not add to 100 due to rounding.
100
Table A6: Arizona timber harvest by species, selected years (sources: McLain 1988;
Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Species
1984
1998
2002
2007
--------------MBF Scribner--------------Ponderosa pine
Engelmann spruce
Douglas-fir
White fir
Other speciesa
All species
b
346,851
66,804
121,614
46,483
8,667
2,340
1,551
2,948
17,217
5,264
3,129
1,915
9,214
961
1,900
1,662
722
943
26
769
382,674
76,312
128,220
53,777
a
Other species include juniper, other softwoods, and hardwoods.
b
May not sum due to rounding.
Ponderosa pine continued to be the leading species harvested among all product types in Arizona in 2007 (table A7), accounting for 86 percent of total harvest
(table A5). Douglas-fir, white and subalpine firs, and Engelmann spruce were harvested in relatively small quantities (table A6). Engelmann spruce comprised only
17 percent of the 2007 house log harvest, Ponderosa pine harvest spiked in 2002 at
95 percent of total harvest partly because of the salvage of fire- and beetle-killed
ponderosa pine (Morgan and others 2006). In 1984, ponderosa pine accounted for
more than 90 percent of the harvest (347 MMBF of 383 MMBF harvested), but
McLain (1988) reported that live trees accounted for 97 percent of this volume.
Timber Flow
The majority (97 percent) of Arizona’s 2007 timber harvest was processed
in State. However, Arizona was a net exporter of timber. Slightly more than
1.7 MMBF was exported for processing in Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, while a
very small amount of timber was imported from Montana, Oregon, and Utah for
processing in Arizona (table A8).
Timber processors in Arizona received 52,133 MBF of timber in 2007.
Ownership sources of timber delivered to Arizona mills in 2007 varied slightly
with more volume coming from National Forest land than in 2002. More than
60 percent of all receipts came from private and tribal timberlands with a little
less than 40 percent from National Forests (table A9), which supplied timber to 11
Arizona mills (65 percent) in 2007. National Forests provided Arizona log home
manufacturers with 96 percent of the house log volume processed in Arizona, with
NIPF landowners providing the remaining 4 percent (table A10).
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 11
Table A7: Arizona timber harvest by species and product, 2007.
Species
Sawlogs
Other
productsb
House logs
All products
---------------Thousand board feet, Scribner-----------------
Ponderosa pine
43,955
331
Engelmann spruce
2,874
75
-
2,949
Douglas-fir
1,912
3
-
1,915
True firsa
1,661
-
1,661
Other speciesc
All species
2,197
-
46,483
719
28
22
769
51,121
437
2,219
53,777
--------------Percentage of product by species-------------
Ponderosa pine
86.0
75.7
99.0
86.4
Engelmann spruce
5.6
17.2
-
5.5
Douglas-fir
3.7
0.7
-
3.6
True firsa
3.2
-
-
3.1
Other speciesc
1.4
6.4
1.0
1.4
95.1
0.8
4.1
All species
100
a
True firs include white and subalpine fir.
b
Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, and viga logs.
Other species include juniper,other softwoods, and hardwoods.
c
Table A8: Arizona timber products imports and exports, 2007.
Timber product
Imports
---Thousand board feet, Scribner---
Sawlogs
-
House logs
Other products
50
a
All products
a
Net imports
(net exports)
Exports
1,683
(1,683)
35
15
24
-
74
1,718
24
(1,644)
Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, and viga logs.
Table A9: Ownership of timber products received by Arizona forest products industry, 1998, 2002 and 2007 (source: Keegan and
others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Ownership class
MBF
Scribner
Private and tribal timberland
48,102
45,964
Tribal
Private
12
1998
2002
Percentage
of total
2007
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
71.1
58,108
76.3
31,706
60.8
68.0
56,150
73.8
4,400
8.4
2,138
3.2
1,958
2.6
27,306
52.4
National Forests
19,510
28.9
18,006
23.7
20,427
39.2
All owners
67,612
100
76,114
100
52,133
100
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table A10: Timber received by Arizona forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
House logs
Other productsa
All products
--------------Thousand board feet, Scribner---------------
Private and tribal timberland
29,630
Private
26,830
Tribal
2,800
20
20
-
2,056
31,706
456
27,306
1,600
4,400
Public timberland
19,808
432
187
20,427
National Forest
19,808
432
187
20,427
49,438
452
2,243
52,133
All owners
--------------Percentage of product by owner-------------
Private and tribal timberland
Private
Tribal
59.9
4.4
91.7
60.8
54.3
4.4
20.3
52.4
-
71.3
8.4
5.7
Public timberland
40.1
95.6
8.3
39.2
National Forest
40.1
95.6
8.3
39.2
94.8
0.9
4.3
All owners
a
Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, and viga logs.
100
Timber Use
Arizona’s 2007 timber harvest—approximately 11,300 thousand cubic feet
(MCF), exclusive of bark (fig. A1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors
both within and outside Arizona. Of this volume, 9,113 MCF was delivered as
logs to sawmills, 73 MCF went to log home manufacturers, and 2,114 MCF went
to other plants, including post, pole, viga, latilla, and wood pellet manufacturers,
as well as residue-utilizing facilities including bioenergy facilities, pulp mills, reconstituted board plants, and mulch and animal bedding producers. Volumes are
presented in cubic feet rather than board feet Scribner because both mill residues
and timber products are displayed.
The following conversion factors were used to convert Scribner board foot volume to cubic feet:
• 5.98 board feet per cubic foot for house logs;
• 5.61 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs;
• 1.05 board foot per cubic foot for all other products.
Of the 9,113 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 3,672 MCF (40 percent)
was processed into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 182 MCF
was lost to shrinkage. The remaining 5,259 MCF (58 percent) yielded mill residue. About 5,198 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized by other sectors within
Arizona and in other States—1,455 MCF for biomass energy; and 3,743 MCF for
pulp, livestock bedding, or mulch. Only 61 MCF (<1 percent) of sawmill residue
remained unused. Of the 73 MCF of timber received by log home manufacturers,
31 MCF (43 percent) became house logs. The remaining 42 MCF became mill
residue. About 8 MCF of house log residue was used by other sectors; and about
34 MCF remained unused. Of the 2,114 MCF of timber received by other manufacturers, all was utilized for solid wood products such as posts, vigas, or latillas,
or used in residue-related products like mulch, livestock bedding, fuel pellets, or
for biomass energy production.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 13
Arizona Timber Harvest and Flow, 2007
Total Harvest
11,300 MCF
Other plantsa
2,114 MCF
House log and log
home manufacturers
73 MCF
Sawmills
9,113 MCF
Residue utilized
by other plants
5,198 MCF
Residue utilized
by other plants
8 MCF
Unutilized
residue
61 MCF
Unutilized
residue
34 MCF
Shrinkage
182 MCF
Finished house logs
and log homes
31 MCF
Other products
7,320 MCF
Finished lumber and
other sawn products
3,672 MCF
a
Other plants include post, pole, viga, latilla, and wood pellet manufacturers, as well as residue-utilizing facilities
Figure
A1: bioenergy
Arizona timber
harvest
flow,
2007.
including
facilities,
pulpand
mills,
reconstituted
board plants, and mulch and animal bedding producers.
Figure A1 --Arizona timber harvest and flow, 2007
14
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Forest Industry Sectors
Arizona’s primary forest products industry in 2007 consisted of 17 active manufacturers in six counties (table A11). Facilities tended to be located near the forest
resource along the northern side of the Mogollon Plateau, with concentrations in
southern Apache and Navajo counties (fig. A2). The sawmill sector, manufacturing
lumber and other sawn products, was the largest sector operating in 2007 with 8
facilities—three less than were operating in 2002. Five facilities produced house
logs and log homes, the same as reported in 2002. A viga and latilla manufacturer,
a log furniture producer, one bark producer, and a fuel pellet manufacturer were
also actively purchasing or utilizing timber in 2007. These four firms were indicative of the increased diversity of timber-processors that developed in Arizona since
the end of the 1980s. One paper mill utilizing recycled material also operated in
Arizona during 2007 but did not receive any timber or mill residue. As recently
as 1998 this facility used some roundwood pulpwood and mill residues and was
included in previous reports (McLain 1988; Keegan and others 2001a).
Primary wood products sales increased as did the variety of producers since
2002, with finished product sales in 2007 about 5 percent higher than in 2002
(table A12). The 2007 sales increase over 2002, however, did not occur in the
sawmill industry, but in the more recently developing log home and other products
Table A11: Active Arizona primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2007 (sources:
McLain 1988; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Pulp
and
paper
County
Lumber
Log homes and
house logs
Apache
1
1
2
2
2
Coconino
Other
productsa
Total
Gila
1
Maricopa
3
Navajo
1
1
Yavapai
2
1
3
2007 Total
8
5
4
0
17
2002 Total
11
5
7
0
23
1998 Total
6
4
2
1
13
1990 Total
14
3
1
1
19
1984 Total
20
0
2
1
23
a
1
1
4
3
5
Other products include posts, poles, vigas, latillas, fuel pellets, log furniture, and biomass energy.
Table A12: Finished product sales of Arizona’s primary wood products sectors, selected years. (sources: WWPA
various years; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Sector
1984
Sawmills
1998
2002
2007
$176,934
$144,784
$30,640
$27,677
$20,458
248
570
2,393
7,193
16,076
$177,182
$145,354
$33,033
$34,870
$36,534
Log home and other sectorsa
Total
a
1990
--------Thousands of 2007 dollars--------
b
Other sectors include producers of posts, poles, vigas, latillas, log furniture, and fuel pellets.
All sales are reported F.O.B. the manufacturer’s plant. Sales of mill residues, mulch, and paper not included for
comparison to previous years.
b
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 15
Figure A2: Map of Arizona
facilities.
sectors where sales increased 572 percent since 1998. In 1990, the four firms manufacturing products other than lumber accounted for only $570,000, less than 0.5
percent of total wood products sales that year (Keegan and others 2001a). In 2007,
sales from the house log and other products manufacturers exceeded $16 million,
and accounted for 44 percent of finished products sales.
Sawmill Sector
The number of sawmills in Arizona decreased in the past five years by over
25 percent, while total lumber production decreased by 34 percent from about
83 MMBF in 2002 to less than 55 MMBF in 2007 (table A13). A number of the
State’s largest sawmills closed between 1998 and 2007, shifting a larger proportion
of the State’s lumber production into small mills producing less than 10 MMBF annually. Consequently, average annual lumber production per mill decreased from
13.5 MMBF in 1998 to 7.5 MMBF in 2002, and 6.9 MMBF for 2007 (table A14).
16
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table A13: Arizona sawmills by production size class, selected years (sources: Setzer and
Wilson 1970; WWPA 1992, 1993; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Year
Under 10 MMBFa
Over 10 MMBFa
Total
-----------------Number of sawmills------------------
2007
8
c
8
2002
9
2
11
1998
2
4
6
1990
5
9
14
1966
13
10
---Percentage of lumber output---
23
Volume (MBFb)
2007
100
c
54,860
2002
25
75
82,658
1998
1
99
80,970
1990
4
96
388,000
1966
11
89
437,000
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet
lumber tally.
a
b
c
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
All mills were included in <10 MMBF to avoid disclosing individual operations.
Table A14: Number of Arizona sawmills and average lumber
production, selected years (sources: McLain 1988; Setzer and
Wilson 1970; Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others
2006).
Year
Number of sawmills
Average lumber production
MMBFa
2007
8
6.9
2002
11
7.5
1998
6
13.5
1990
14
27.7
1984
20
19.2
1966
23
19.0
1962
28
11.6
1960
38
8.7
a
MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.
The State’s four largest sawmills in 2007 produced an average of 12.7 MMBF, accounting for 93 percent of the lumber production, while the remaining four mills
had an average lumber production of less than 1 MMBF (table A15).
On average, Arizona sawmills produced approximately 1.12 board feet of
lumber for every board foot Scribner of timber processed for an average overrun of 12 percent in 2007. Overrun was 27 percent in 2002 (Morgan and others
2006) and 46 percent in 1998 (Keegan and others 2001a). The overrun decline
was likely due to the dramatic shift of timber processed and the resulting size,
condition, and product mix that could be recovered from the harvested timber. In
1998, about 64 percent of the lumber produced by Arizona’s sawmills was dimension and studs, 35 percent was board and shop lumber, and less than one percent
was timbers (Keegan and others 2001a). In 2002, only 22 percent of the lumber
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 17
Table A15: Arizona lumber production by mill size, 2007.
Number
of mills
Size classa
Percentage
of total
Volume
Average
per mill
MBFb
MBFb
Over 5 MMBF
4
50,890
93
12,723
Under 5 MMBF
4
3,970
7
993
Total
8
54,860
100
6,858
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber
tally.
a
b
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
produced by Arizona’s sawmills was dimension and studs; while 69 percent was
board and shop lumber, and timbers, cants, or pallet stock constituted 19 percent
of production (Morgan and others 2006). For 2007, only 4 percent of the lumber
produced by Arizona’s sawmills was dimension and studs; while 3 percent was
board and shop lumber, and timbers, cants, or pallet stock constituted 93 percent
of production.
Historically, the sawmill sector has accounted for more than 99 percent of wood
products sales in Arizona. By 2002 that proportion had slipped to 79 percent, as
timber harvest levels declined and the number of sawmills decreased. Sales from
sawmills accounted for just 56 percent ($20.5 million) of finished products sales
in 2007, decreasing from $27.7 million in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006). Of the
sawmill products mine timbers, cants, and pallet stock accounted for $18.8 million
(91.8 percent), board and shop lumber accounted for just under $1 million (4.5 percent) of sawmill sales in 2007, and dimension lumber was $ .76 million (3.7 percent) of sales. This was quite a shift in product balance from historical sales.
Log home Sector
Arizona’s log home sector remained relatively unchanged from 2002. The number of house log manufacturers did not change from 2002 to 2007 (table A11).
Only firms that process timber and manufacture house logs or log homes, not log
home distributors, were included in the 1990, 1998, 2002 and 2007 censuses. In
2007, Arizona’s five log home manufacturers processed 452 MBF Scribner of timber, produced about 139 MLF of house logs, and generated about $1.8 million
in product sales. 2002 sales were higher by10 percent ($2 million), and both the
volume of timber processed and volume of house logs produced decreased 8 and
17 percent respectively for 2007.
Other Products Sector
As with the sawmill sector fewer Arizona mills produced other primary wood
products, with three less facilities operating in 2007 than in 2002 (table A11).
Finished products sales by manufacturers of posts, poles, vigas, latillas, fuel pellets, and log furniture exceeded $14 million in 2007. A specific sales value was
not reported in 2002 to avoid disclosure of firm level data (Morgan and others
2006); however, sales from the sector were estimated to have increased more than
180 percent from 2002 to 2007. Additional detail about the sector must be withheld
to protect the confidentiality of firm level information.
18
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Capacity and Utilization
Two aspects of capacity were examined for calendar year 2007 in Arizona and
the other Four Corners States: production capacity and timber-processing capacity. Production capacity is defined as the amount of finished product that could
be produced given sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm market demand
for the products, considering normal maintenance and down time. Primary wood
products producers specified annual and 8-hour shift production capacities in units
of output (for example, MBF of lumber, MLF of house logs, number of vigas, etc.)
for each firm. Product recovery ratios were calculated for each firm using reported
timber input and product output volumes. Timber-processing capacity was defined
as the volume of timber reported in MBF Scribner that could be processed given
sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm market demand for the products, and
was estimated for each firm by applying the product recovery ratios to production
capacity.
Arizona’s annual sawmill production capacity was 77,850 MBF of lumber in
2007. Producing 54,860 MBF of lumber, sawmills utilized about 70 percent of
their lumber production capacity. Across all industry sectors, total timber-processing capacity was 84,857 MBF Scribner. Accounting for changes in log inventories,
a total of 58,231 MBF Scribner was processed by Arizona firms in 2007, with
timber-processing capacity utilization about 69 percent. Sawtimber-processing
capacity was 141,480 MBF Scribner in 1998, with 53,458 MBF Scribner (38 percent) utilized (Keegan and others 2001a). In 2002, sawtimber-processing capacity
fell to 98,025 MBF Scribner, with 71,260 MBF Scribner (73 percent) utilized.
The decreased sawtimber-processing capacity and increased capacity utilization
resulted from the permanent closure of two large sawmills, which were operating
well below capacity in 1998.
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses
In 1998, Arizona’s lone paper mill was the largest consumer of mill residues that
were generated in the State. However, that mill shifted to using recycled material
and did not use either roundwood pulpwood or mill residues in 2007. This change
affected not only the ways and amounts of residues that were utilized, but it also
impacted other sectors’ ability to operate profitably. Sawmills, the leading timber
processors, were also the main residue producers in Arizona. These facilities had
to develop new markets for their residues, utilize the residues in-house, or consider
cutting production to avoid generating more residue than could be disposed of
affordably.
In 2007, Arizona mills produced 67,329 BDU, approximately 6,464 MCF of
mill residue, with 98.5 percent utilized (table A16). Both residue production and
the proportion utilized decreased from 1998. In 1998, Arizona sawmills generated
8,687 MCF, utilizing 99.9 percent (Keegan and others 2001a). Arizona’s drop in
residue utilization between 1998 and 2007 signaled a reversal of the long-term
trend of increased residue utilization noted by Keegan and others (2001a) and was
largely attributable to changes at the State’s paper mill. The decrease in total residue volume generated, however, was attributable to sawmills processing less volume but creating more residues per unit of lumber produced because of the balance
of products produced. In 1998, sawmills produced about 1.12 BDU per MBF of
lumber; in 2007 that residue factor had increased to 1.22 BDU per MBF of lumber
(table A17).
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 19
Table A16: Production and disposition of Arizona mill residues, 2007.
Total
utilized
Residue type
Pulp and
board
Mulch/
bedding
Energy
Unspecified
use
Total
produced
Unused
----------------------------Bone-dry unitsa--------------------------------
Coarse
37,223
Fine
15,537
-
-
8,676
-
-
Sawdust
Planer shavings
14,000
6,861
-
Bark
13,536
-
Total
66,296
14,573
14,000
-
8,650
300
37,523
15,537
-
665
16,202
8,676
-
640
9,316
6,861
-
25
6,886
2
5,814
7,720
68
13,604
14,575
21,351
16,370
1,033
67,329
----------------------------Percentage of residue type--------------------------------
Coarse
99.2
37.3
38.8
-
Fine
23.1
0.8
55.7
95.9
-
-
95.9
-
4.1
24.1
Sawdust
93.1
-
-
93.1
-
6.9
13.8
Planer shavings
99.6
-
-
99.6
-
0.4
10.2
Bark
99.5
-
0.0
42.7
56.7
0.5
20.2
Total
98.5
20.8
a
Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.
21.6
31.7
24.3
1.5
100
Table A17: Arizona sawmill residue factors, 1998, 2002 and 2007 (sources:
Keegan and others 2001a; Morgan and others 2006).
Type of residue
1998
2002
2007
------BDU/MBF lumber tally -------a
Coarse
0.50
0.44
0.68
Sawdust
0.22
0.15
0.17
Planer shavings
0.19
0.14
0.12
Bark
0.21
0.23
0.25
Total
1.12
0.96
1.22
Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated for
every 1,000 board feet of lumber manufactured.
a
Three types of wood fiber residue have been produced by Arizona mills: coarse
residue (chips) consisting of slabs, edging, trim, peelings, and log ends; fine residue consisting of planer shavings and sawdust; and bark. Coarse residue was the
State’s largest residue component at 37,523 BDUs (55.7 percent) of all residues in
2007, with 99 percent utilized. Out-of-State pulp and paper facilities used about
14,000 BDUs of the coarse material, with the remaining utilized volume going to
energy and unspecified uses (table A16). Fine residues comprised the second largest component at 16,202 BDUs (24.1 percent) of mill residues. Only 95.9 percent
of fine residue was utilized in 2007, primarily as mulch or animal bedding. Bark
accounted for 20 percent of all residues and was largely used for mulch or unspecified products in 2007, with 13,536 BDU (99.5 percent) utilized.
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales
Sales from Arizona’s primary wood products industry in 2007 totaled $38.2
million, including finished products and mill residues (table A18). Lumber, mine
20
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table A18: Destination and sales value of Arizona’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2007.
Product
Arizona
Other
4-Corner
States
Other Rocky
Mtn Statesa
Far Westb
Northeastc
Southd
North
Centrale
Otherf
Total
------------------------------------------Thousand 2007 dollars------------------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers, and other
sawn products
$7,930
$9,557
-
-
$1,584
$788
House logs and log homes
1,189
328
-
-
119
-
219
-
1,855
Other products
5,307
8,092
-
2,440
-
-
-
-
15,839
g
Total
$14,426
$563
$17,977
$563
$119
$1,584
$1,007
$90
$20,512
$38,206
--------------------------------------Percentage of regional sales by product-------------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers, and other
sawn products
House logs and log homes
55.0
53.2
100.0
8.2
1.8
-
Other productsg
36.8
45.0
-
Total
37.8
47.1
1.5
a
Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
b
Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
c
$2,440
$90
-
-
100.0
78.3
-
-
-
-
21.7
-
4.9
-
-
-
-
41.5
4.1
2.6
0.2
100.0
6.4
0.3
53.7
100
Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
d
e
North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the United States.
f
g
Other products include posts, poles, vigas, latillas, log furniture, mill residues, mulch, and fuel pellets.
timbers, and other sawn products accounted for 54 percent ($20.5 million) of total
sales; house logs and log homes accounted for 5 percent ($1.9 million); while other
products and mill residues accounted for 41 percent ($15.8 million). The other
Four Corners States (Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) were the leading markets
for lumber, log homes, and other products which accounted for 47 percent of total
sales. Arizona was second with in-State sales accounting for 37.8 percent of total
sales, lumber playing a significant role. The Far West States were a major market
area for other products, including mill residues.
Colorado
This chapter focuses on Colorado’s timber harvest and forest products industry
during 2007. Details of timber harvest, flow, and use are followed by descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity and utilization statistics, and mill
residue characteristics. The chapter concludes with information on primary wood
products industry sales by Colorado mills. Comparisons with previous years are
provided where possible. Limited historical information is available about timber harvesting and mill production and residues in Colorado. The last comprehensive report on the State’s industrial roundwood production and mill residues
was conducted in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006) and data for previous years include 1962 (Spencer and Farrenkopf 1964), 1969 (Setzer 1971b), 1974 (Setzer and
Shupe 1977), and 1982 (McLain 1985). More recently, Lynch and Mackes (2001)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 21
provided a brief discussion of Colorado timber harvest in their study of wood use
in Colorado from 1997 to 2000.
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use
In 2008, Colorado had approximately 11.4 million acres of nonreserved timberland (Forest Inventory and Analysis 2009), with National Forests accounting for
69 percent, private owners accounting for 22 percent, and other public agencies
accounting for the remaining 10 percent (table C1). All private timberland was
classified as NIPF timberland. Colorado had no large tracts of timberland owned
by entities operating primary wood processing facilities. Standing sawtimber volume on timberland was estimated at 16.3 billion cubic feet or approximately 85.8
billion board feet Scribner in 2008 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2009).
Timber Harvest
Colorado’s 2007 commercial timber harvest was 86.5 MMBF Scribner, an 8.5
percent increase over 2002’s harvest of 79.7 MMBF Scribner. The 2007 harvest
was 21 percent less than the 1999 harvest of 110 MMBF reported by Lynch and
Mackes (2001) and nearly 16 percent less than the 1982 harvest of 103 MMBF
Scribner (McLain 1985). Only modest increases in Colorado’s total annual timber
harvest occurred despite increased salvage of dead timber, accounting for 55 percent (47.8 MMBF) of the 2007 harvest volume, more than doubling the 26 percent
(20 MMBF) harvest of dead timber in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006). In 1982
dead trees accounted for just 8 percent of the total harvest volume (McLain 1985).
As in most of the Western States, decreasing Federal timber harvests have led to
smaller total harvest volumes and greater shares of annual timber harvest coming
from other ownership sources. However the National Forest’s share of Colorado’s
timber harvest in 2007 was almost 50 percent. While in recent years private and
tribal landowners provided the majority of Colorado’s timber harvest, for 2007
they were down slightly at 48 percent. Lynch and Mackes (2001) indicated that
National Forests provided about 47 percent of the 1999 harvest. In 2002, the
National Forest’s share of Colorado’s timber harvest had dropped to 38 percent
(table C2). In 1974 and 1982, National Forests accounted for 90 and 80 percent, respectively, of harvested volume (Setzer and Shupe 1977, McLain 1985). National
Forests did provide the majority (78.5 percent) of house logs and other products
harvested in 2007, but NIPF landowners provided the majority of sawlogs, and
post and poles (table C3). Sawlogs accounted for about 84 percent (73 MMBF) of
the total volume harvested, house logs and other products accounted for about 5
and 7 percent respectively, and posts and poles were about 3 percent of the harvest
in 2007.
Table C1: Colorado nonreserved timberland by ownership class (source:
Forest Inventory and Analysis program, 2008).
Thousand
acres
Percentage of
nonreserved
timberland
National Forest
7,824
69
Private
2,456
22
Ownership class
Other public
Total
22
1,117
10
11,397
100
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table C2: Colorado timber harvest by ownership class, 1982, 2002 and 2007 (source: McLain 1985; Morgan and others
2006).
Ownership class
Private and tribal timberland
Private
Tribal
Public timberland
National Forest
State lands
Other public
All owners
1982
MBF
Scribner
2002
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
2007
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
14,814
14.3
45,723
57.4
41,334
47.8
14,814
14.3
45,223
56.7
40,810
47.2
0.0
500
0.6
524
0.6
88,618
85.7
33,989
42.6
45,206
52.2
83,106
80.3
30,631
38.4
43,179
49.9
4,977
4.8
2,749
3.4
1,837
2.1
535
0.5
609
0.8
190
0.2
-
103,448
100
79,711
100
86,540
100
Table C3: Colorado timber products harvested by ownership class, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
Post & pole
House logs
Other
productsa
All products
-------Thousand board feet, Scribner--------
National Forest
34,610
1,295
3,621
3,653
43,179
Private timberland
35,939
1,473
931
2,467
40,810
Other public lands
1,957
38
32
2,027
6,152
86,540
Tribal timberland
500
All owners
73,006
-
24
2,768
4,614
-
524
-----Percentage of harvested product by ownership----
National Forest
47.4
46.8
78.5
59.4
49.9
Private timberland
49.2
53.2
20.2
40.1
47.2
Other public lands
2.7
-
0.8
0.5
2.3
0.7
-
Tribal timberland
All owners
84.4
3.2
0.5
-
5.3
7.1
0.6
100
Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, viga logs, and logs delivered to primary manufacturers that became
firewood.
a
During 2007, Grand County led Colorado’s timber harvest with just over 35 percent (30.4 MMBF Scribner) of the volume; Delta and Mesa Counties followed with
15 and 6 percent, respectively (table C4). For the 2002 harvest, Garfield County
led Colorado’s timber harvest with just under 12 percent (9.3 MMBF Scribner) and
Mesa and Las Animas Counties followed with 11 and 9 percent. In 1982, Jackson
and Montezuma Counties led the harvest with more than 15 MMBF (14 percent)
of the harvest each (McLain 1988).
Lodgepole pine was the leading species harvested in Colorado, accounting for
52 percent of the harvested volume in 2007 (table C5). This major shift in species
harvested from past years mainly stemmed from massive numbers of lodgepole
pine trees either killed by or threatened by mountain pine beetle attack. Aspen
and cottonwood accounted for 20 percent, spruces, including Engelmann and blue
spruce, accounted for almost 12 percent, while ponderosa pine accounted for 8 percent. Ponderosa pine was the most frequently harvested species by volume in 2002
(28 percent), followed by spruces at 25 percent, then aspen/cottonwood 19 percent
and lodgepole pine at only 15 percent (Morgan and others 2006). In 1982, spruces
were the leading species harvested, accounting for slightly more than 40 percent,
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 23
Table C4: Colorado timber harvest by county, selected years (sources: Setzer and Shupe 1977; McLain 1985; Morgan and others 2006).
County
1974
1982
2002
2007
1974
1982
--------MBF Scribner--------
Adams
Alamosa
Archuleta
-
-
Clear Creek
-
0.2
0.8
-
-
11.6
0.3
2.1
0.3
a
-
300
1,640
260
90
514
44
3
a
0.5
0.1
252
595
48
-
0.2
0.7
500
6,007
1,221
-
-
800
-
Conejos
2
397
-
2007
--Percentage of harvest--
8
24,856
Boulder
Chaffee
2002
a
a
0.1
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
740
618
2.8
1.2
0.9
0.7
Costilla
-
-
3,684
4,986
-
-
4.6
5.8
Custer
2,383
2,526
300
717
1.1
2.4
0.4
0.8
Delta
1,324
933
2,376
13,195
0.6
0.9
3.0
15.2
Dolores
12,687
7,801
5,907
3,275
5.9
7.5
7.4
3.8
Douglas
213
1,600
40
417
0.1
1.5
0.1
0.5
Eagle
5,221
1,500
200
-
2.4
1.5
0.3
-
Elbert
265
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
El Paso
285
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
Fremont
-
-
1.1
2.1
0.4
Garfield
2,218
11.7
2.2
470
240
49
1,100
1,673
348
500
9,321
1,924
Gilpin
-
-
20
Grand
18,406
618
3,113
Gunnison
12,431
2,336
4,249
1.0
0.5
-
-
30,387
8.6
0.6
3.9
35.1
4,110
5.8
2.3
5.3
4.7
-
-
a
Huerfano
2,192
1,800
500
500
1.0
1.7
0.6
0.6
Jackson
20,786
16,273
4,373
2,916
9.7
15.7
5.5
3.4
Jefferson
-
1,881
361
21
-
1.8
0.5
a
La Plata
39,950
1,271
2,312
321
18.7
1.2
2.9
0.4
Lake
Larimer
Las Animas
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
-
5,219
2,497
3,145
528
2.4
2.4
3.9
0.6
993
1,600
7,057
2,300
8.9
2.7
33
-
-
-
-
-
5,252
1,765
8,660
11,876
6,531
372
-
124
Logan
Mesa
Mineral
Moffat
158
844
0.5
1.5
a
-
4,973
2.5
1.7
10.9
5.7
683
5.5
6.3
0.5
0.8
-
0.1
-
0.2
-
Montezuma
4,169
15,001
4,495
3,242
1.9
14.5
5.6
3.7
Montrose
2,714
7,735
3,029
1,625
1.3
7.5
3.8
1.9
Ouray
-
2,565
30
8
-
2.5
a
a
Park
252
2,456
4,369
2,432
0.1
2.4
5.5
2.8
Pitkin
331
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
Pueblo
176
-
306
0.1
-
0.4
0.1
Rio Blanco
370
10
730
-
0.2
a
0.9
-
Rio Grande
10,857
9,277
557
100
5.1
9.0
0.7
0.1
Routt
10,442
1,976
1,143
2,008
4.9
1.9
1.4
2.3
Saguache
11,426
4,802
520
1,459
5.3
4.6
0.7
1.7
San Juan
-
-
274
-
-
-
0.3
-
San Miguel
-
2,131
1,020
-
-
2.1
1.3
-
Summit
-
Teller
Total
a
Less than 0.05 percent.
24
46
48
193
289
2,606
-
0.2
0.4
3.0
713
1,049
432
a
0.7
1.3
0.5
214,025
103,448
79,711
86,540
100
100
100
100
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table C5: Colorado timber harvest by species, selected years (sources: Setzer and Shupe 1977; McLain 1985; Morgan and others
2006).
Species
1974
1982
2002
2007
1974
19.7
15.0
15.6
52.0
------- MBF Scribner -------
Lodgepole pine
Aspen
1982
2002
2007
---- Percentage of harvest ----
42,187
15,500
12,457
45,026
4,825
12,737
15,292
17,319
2.3
12.3
19.2
20.0
Sprucea
91,638
41,877
19,908
10,203
42.8
40.5
25.0
11.8
Ponderosa pine
34,306
22,716
22,526
6,899
16.0
22.0
28.3
8.0
Douglas-fir
26,927
6,574
6,959
3,946
12.6
6.4
8.7
4.6
True firs
14,142
3,986
2,512
3,132
6.6
3.9
3.2
3.6
58
58
14
-
0.1
0.1
0.0
103,448
79,711
86,539
b
Other speciesc
-
All species
214,025
a
Spruce includes Engelmann and blue spruce.
b
True firs include white and subalpine fir.
c
100
100
100
Other species includegambel oak and western redcedar.
Table C6: Colorado timber harvest by species and product, 2007.
Species
100
Sawlogs
House logs
Posts
and poles
Other
productsa
All
products
--------Thousand board feet, Scribner---------
Lodgepole pine
42,187
Aspen
1,277
1,317
246
45,026
11,535
65
5
5,715
17,319
Spruceb
7,025
3,090
82
5
10,203
Ponderosa pine
5,667
41
1,019
171
6,899
Douglas-fir
3,472
136
335
2
3,946
True firs
3,118
c
Other speciesd
2
All species
73,006
4
4,614
10
-
2,769
3,133
12
14
6,152
86,540
------Percentage of product by species-------
Lodgepole pine
57.8
28.5
8.9
4.0
52.0
Aspen
15.8
0.1
206.4
92.9
20.0
b
Spruce
9.6
1.8
0.2
0.1
11.8
Ponderosa pine
7.8
22.1
6.2
2.8
8.0
Douglas-fir
4.8
7.3
0.1
0.0
4.6
True firsc
4.3
0.2
-
-
3.6
0.0
-
0.4
0.2
5.3
3.2
7.1
Other species
d
All species
84.4
0.0
100
a
Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, viga logs, and logs delivered to primary manufacturers that became firewood.
b
Spruce includes Engelmann and blue spruce.
True firs include white and subalpine fir.
c
d
Other species include gambel oak and western redcedar.
while ponderosa pine accounted for 22 percent (McLain 1985). Lodgepole pine
and aspen were the leading species harvested for sawlogs in 2007, accounting for
almost 58 and 16 percent, respectively (table C6). Spruces comprised 67 percent of
the house log harvest, lodgepole pine was the leading species harvested for posts
and poles, and aspen and cottonwood accounted for 93 percent of other products
volume harvested.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 25
Timber Flow
The majority (98 percent) of Colorado’s 2007 timber harvest was processed
in-State; during 2007 Colorado was a net importer of about 7.3 MMBF of timber.
About 1.6 MMBF were exported for processing in Utah, and New Mexico; while
8.9 MMBF were imported from Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, Montana,
Oklahoma, and Canada for processing in Colorado (table C7).
Timber processors in Colorado received 93,871 MBF of timber in 2007, including 8,968 MBF that was harvested outside the State. Private and tribal timberlands provided 48 percent of the timber delivered to Colorado mills in 2007, with
44,325 MBF coming from private lands and 534 MBF from tribal lands (table C8).
National Forests provided about 46.6 percent (43,790MBF) of timber receipts,
with 27—less than half—of Colorado’s timber processors receiving timber cut
from National Forests. During 2007, National Forests provided Colorado log
home manufacturers with 84 percent of the house log volume processed in-State,
NIPF landowners provided 14 percent, and less than 1 percent came from Canada.
Private timberlands supplied the majority of sawlogs and posts and poles processed in Colorado, while public timberlands provided the majority of timber for
other products.
Timber Use
Colorado’s 2007 timber harvest—approximately 21,578 MCF, exclusive of bark
(fig. C1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and outside of
Colorado. Of this volume, 13,362 MCF went as logs to sawmills, 918 MCF went
to log home manufacturers, and 7,298 MCF went to post, pole, viga, latilla, log
furniture, and excelsior manufacturers.
The following conversion factors were used to convert Scribner board foot volume to cubic feet:
• 5.08 board feet per cubic foot for house logs;
• 5.27 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs;
• 2.21 board foot per cubic foot for all other products.
Of the 13,362 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 5,027 MCF (38 percent)
was processed into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 150 MCF
was lost to shrinkage. The remaining 8,185 MCF (61 percent) yielded mill residue.
About 8,076 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized, and about 123 MCF (1 percent)
remained unused. Of the 918 MCF of timber received by log home manufacturers, about 603 MCF (66 percent) was manufactured into house logs, while the
remaining 315 MCF became mill residue. About 305 MCF of house log residue
was utilized, and about 10 MCF remained unused. Of the 7,298 MCF of timber
Table C7: Colorado timber products imports and exports, 2007.
Timber product
Imports
Exports
Net imports
(net exports)
--Thousand board feet, Scribner--
Sawlogs
2,103
-
2,103
House logs
1,738
120
1,618
Other productsa
5,127
1,517
3,610
All products
8,968
1,637
7,331
Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, viga logs, and logs delivered to primary
manufacturers that became firewood.
a
26
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table C8: Timber received by Colorado forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
Posts
and poles
House logs
Other
productsa
All
products
-------Thousand board feet, Scribner--------
Private and tribal timberland
Private
Tribal
38,192
1,084
927
4,657
44,859
37,692
1,084
893
4,657
44,325
-
34
500
Public timberland
National Forest
State lands
-
534
36,917
280
5,275
6,510
48,982
34,610
280
5,237
3,663
43,790
2,157
-
13
2,832
5,002
150
-
25
15
190
Other owners
-
-
30
Other mills
-
-
Canada
-
-
Other public
All owners
75,109
1,364
-
-
30
30
6,232
-
11,167
30
93,871
--------Percentage of product by owner--------
Private and tribal timberland
Private
Tribal
50.8
79.5
14.9
41.7
47.8
50.2
79.5
14.3
41.7
47.2
0.7
Public timberland
National Forest
0.5
-
0.6
49.2
20.5
-
84.7
58.3
52.2
46.1
20.5
84.0
32.8
46.6
State lands
2.9
-
0.2
25.4
5.3
Other public
0.2
-
0.4
0.1
0.2
Other owners
-
-
0.5
-
0.0
Other mills
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
1.5
6.6
11.9
Canada
All owners
80.0
0.0
100
Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, viga logs, and logs delivered to primary manufacturers that became
firewood.
a
received by other manufacturers, nearly 6,409 MCF was utilized in solid wood
products (such as posts, poles, vigas, latillas, and log furniture) or was used in the
production of excelsior. About 885 MCF of residues from these other sectors were
utilized and 4 MCF went unused.
Forest Industry Sectors
Colorado’s primary forest products industry in 2007 consisted of 64 active manufacturers in 28 counties (table C9). Facilities tended to be located near the forest
resource in the central and southwestern portions of the State (fig. C2). The sawmill sector, manufacturing lumber and other sawn products, was the largest sector
operating in 2007 with 30 mills; 19 facilities produced house logs and log homes.
There were nine log furniture producers, five post and pole firms, and an excelsior
producer also operating in 2007. Morgan and others (2006) identified 133 primary
wood-processing plants in 2002: 50 sawmills, 46 house log plants, 10 post and
pole facilities, and 27 facilities producing log furniture and other products including a shake mill, and an excelsior manufacturer. Changes in Colorado’s industry
structure over the past 20 years were similar to those experienced throughout the
West, with the number of sawmills decreasing and the number and diversity of
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 27
Colorado Timber Harvest and Flow, 2007
Total Harvest
21,578 MCF
Other plantsa
7,298 MCF
House log and log
home manufacturers
918 MCF
Sawmills
13,362 MCF
Utilized
residue
8,076 MCF
Unutilized
residue
10 MCF
Unutilized
residue
4 MCF
Utilized
residue
885 MCF
Unutilized
residue
123 MCF
Utilized
residue
9,266 MCF
Shrinkage
150 MCF
Finished house logs
and log homes
603 MCF
Other products
6,409 MCF
Finished lumber and
other sawn products
5,027 MCF
a
Other
plants
include
post,harvest
pole, viga,
log furniture, and excelsior manufacturers.
Figure
C1:
Colorado
timber
and latilla,
flow, 2007.
Figure C1- Colorado timber harvest and flow, 2007.
28
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table C9: Active Colorado primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2007 (sources: McLain
1985; Morgan and others 2006).
County
Lumber
Log homes and
house logs
Post and pole
Arapahoe
Log furniture and
other productsa
Total
1
1
Archuleta
3
Boulder
1
3
Conejos
2
2
Custer
1
1
Delta
3
3
1
Denver
Eagle
1
1
1
1
El Paso
1
Fremont
2
Garfield
2
1
Grand
1
1
Huerfano
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
5
1
Jefferson
1
La Plata
1
3
Larimer
3
1
Las Animas
1
Mesa
1
Mineral
1
4
1
1
6
1
1
1
Montezuma
3
Montrose
2
Park
Rio Grande
2
1
1
4
1
5
1
7
3
3
1
1
Routt
2
2
Saguache
1
1
Summit
Teller
1
1
2
1
Weld
1
1
1
2007 Total
30
19
5
10
64
2002 Total
50
46
10
27
133
1982 Total
84
5
a
Other products include excelsior.
4
2
95
other manufacturers increasing (Keegan and others 2001a,b; Morgan and others
2004 a,b; Morgan and others 2006).
Historic sales values for Colorado’s primary wood products producers were not
provided by Setzer (1971b), Setzer and Shupe (1977), or McLain (1985). In 2007,
sales value of finished products from Colorado’s primary wood products industry
totaled $101 million. This compares to 2002 sales of $109 million in 2007 dollars (table C10). Sales from sawmills accounted for 44 percent, about the same as
2002; house log and log home manufacturers accounted for 24 percent, a 5 percent
drop from 2002; and other products manufacturers accounted for about 33 percent,
an increase from 2002 of about 5 percent of finished products sales.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 29
Figure C2: Map of Colorado facilities.
Table C10: Finished product sales of Colorado’s primary wood products sectors,
2007 (source: Morgan and others 2006).
Sector
2002
--------Thousands of 2007 dollarsa--------
Sawmills
$47,193
$45,043
Log homes
31,808
19,460
Other sectorsb
30,136
36,652
$109,137
$101,155
Total
30
2007
a
All sales are reported f.o.b. the manufacturer’s plant.
b
Other sectors include producers of posts, poles, log furniture, and excelsior.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Sawmill Sector
The number of sawmills in Colorado decreased from 84 in 1982 (McLain 1985)
to 50 in 2002 and to 30 in 2007 (table C11), with 20 sawmills closing between
2002 and 2007. Total lumber production in the State increased 39 percent from
about 83 MMBF in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006) to115 MMBF, the average
production per mill increased 129 percent from 1.7 MMBF to 3.9 MMBF. This
increase is a function of fewer mills producing more volume. The State’s nine largest sawmills in 2007 produced an average of 11,788 MBF, and seven of these mills
produced between 2,000 MBF and 5,000 MBF. The remaining 21 mills produced
less than 442 MBF of lumber (table C12).
Technological improvements have made Colorado mills more efficient. For example, thinner kerf saws reduce the proportion of the log that becomes sawdust.
Additionally, mill-delivered log diameters are believed to have decreased over the
past 25 years, with reduced old-growth harvesting and increased use of restoration
and fuels treatments that favor retention of larger trees and the removal of smaller
stems. As log diameters decrease, the Scribner log rule, which is used in Colorado,
under estimates—by an increasing amount—the volume of lumber that can be
recovered from a log, thus increasing overrun. On average, Colorado sawmills
produced approximately 1.54 board feet of lumber for every board foot Scribner of
timber processed for an average overrun of 54 percent in 2007, slightly higher than
the 47 percent overrun in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006). Overrun was estimated
to be 17 percent in 1982, using WWPA’s (1983) lumber production and McLain’s
(1985) sawlog consumption. This overrun increase was attributed to improved
milling technology and the increased use of smaller diameter timber.
Table C11: Number of Colorado sawmills and average
lumber production, selected years (source: McLain
1985; WWPA 1983; Morgan and others 2006).
Number of
sawmills
Year
Average lumber
production
MMBFa
2007
31
3.8
2002
50
1.7
1982
84
1.4b
a
MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.
b
Total production 118 MMBF.
Table C12: Colorado lumber production by mill size, 2007.
Size classa
Number
of mills
Percentage
of total
Volume
Average
per mill
MBFb
MBFb
Over 2 MMBF
10
108,289
93
10,829
Under 2 MMBF
21
7,843
7
373
Total
31
116,132
100
3,746
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet
lumber tally.
a
b
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 31
Sales from sawmills declined from 2002 to 2007, accounting for just 43.5 percent
($44 million) of Colorado timber processors’ finished products sales in 2007; this
parallels 2002 numbers of 43 percent ($41.5 million) (Morgan and others 2006). In
comparison; sawmill sales accounted for 56 and 49 percent of timber processors’
finished product sales in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively, during 2007, and
historically accounted for 90 percent or more of sales throughout the Interior West
(Keegan and others 2001a,b,c; Morgan and others 2004b). Dimension lumber and
studs accounted for $28.1 million (64 percent) of sawmill product sales in 2007;
other sawn products accounted for $7.3 million (17 percent); mine timbers, cants,
and railroad ties accounted for $5 million (11 percent); board and shop lumber accounted for $2.2 million (5 percent); and other miscellaneous products accounted
for nearly $1.4 million (3 percent) of finished product sales from sawmills.
Log Home Sector
Colorado’s log home sector experienced substantial growth and then a decline
over the past 25 years. Twenty-seven less facilities were identified in 2007 than in
2002, whereas 41 more house log manufacturers were identified in 2002 than in
1982 (table C9). Only firms that processed timber and manufactured house logs
or log homes, not log home distributors, were included in the 1982, 2002 and
2007 censuses. In 2007, Colorado’s 19 log home manufacturers processed almost
6 MMBF Scribner of timber, produced about 1.3 million lineal feet (MMLF) of
house logs, and generated $19.5 million in product sales. By sales value, Colorado’s
log home industry is the third largest in the Western United States behind Montana
and Idaho.
Other Products Sectors
Following the same trend as the log home sector, Colorado’s producers of posts
and poles and other primary wood products significantly expanded production
from 1982 to 2002; production then declined from 2002 to 2007. There were 21
less manufacturers operating in this sector in 2007 compared to 2002, while 31
more facilities operated in 2002 than in 1982 (table C9). In 2007, nine of these
other products facilities manufactured log furniture, five were post and pole producers, and one was an excelsior plant. Finished products sales by manufacturers
of posts and poles exceeded $9 million, and sales by manufacturers of log furniture
and excelsior exceeded $30 million in 2007. Additional detail about this sector is
withheld to protect the confidentiality of firm level information.
Capacity and Utilization
Colorado’s annual sawmill production capacity was 205.5 MMBF of lumber in
2007. Sawmills produced 115.4 MMBF of lumber in 2007, utilizing 56 percent of
their lumber production capacity. This was an increase from the historically low
level of 35 percent production capacity utilization of reported in 2002 (Morgan and
others 2006). Timber-processing capacity among Colorado sawmills was 121,927
MBF Scribner, with 72,007 MBF Scribner of timber processed, making utilization
of timber-processing capacity among sawmills about 59 percent in 2007. Across
all industry sectors, total timber-processing capacity was 144,308 MBF Scribner.
Accounting for changes in mills’ log inventories, a total of 93,894 MBF Scribner
was processed by Colorado firms in 2007, making timber-processing capacity utilization about 65 percent across all sectors. The greater timber-processing capacity
utilization of all sectors compared to sawmills alone would indicate that processors
32
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
other than sawmills were operating near their total timber capacity and are better
positioned to utilize the mix of timber being offered in Colorado.
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses
Sawmills, the leading timber processors, were also the main residue producers in Colorado. In 2007, sawmills produced 1.04 BDU of residue per MBF of
lumber (table C13). Across all sectors, Colorado timber processors produced
121,982 BDU, approximately 11,729 MCF of mill residue, with 98.7 percent utilized (table C14). Total residue production declined from 22,749 MCF in 1974 and
12,420 MCF in 1982, but increased from 9,115 MCF in 2002, while the proportion
utilized increased from 40 percent in 1974 to 64 percent in 1982 (McLain 1985),
to 98 percent in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006). Colorado’s decreased residue
production stemmed from increased milling efficiencies working in concert with
decreased timber volumes processed. Increased residue utilization between 1974
and 2007 was attributable to decreased residue production and the evolution of
better markets for residue-related products.
Coarse residue was the State’s largest residue component at 57 percent
(69,552 BDU) of all residues in 2007, with 99 percent utilized. Out-of-State pulp,
paper, and reconstituted board facilities used 43,300 BDUs of the coarse material; the remaining volume was used for energy production and unspecified uses
(table C14). Fine residues comprised the second largest component at 30 percent
(36,639 BDUs) of mill residues. Almost 98 percent of fine residue was utilized in
2007, primarily for energy, with a little over one-third of fine residues going to
mulch or animal bedding facilities. Bark accounted for 13 percent of all residues
and was largely burned for energy or used for mulch in 2007, with 15,596 BDUs
(98 percent) utilized.
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales
Sales from Colorado’s primary wood products industry during 2007 totaled
nearly $104 million, including finished products and mill residues (table C15).
Lumber, mine timbers, and other sawn products accounted for 43 percent (over
$45 million) of total sales; house logs and log homes accounted for 19 percent
(over $19 million); while other products and mill residues accounted for 29 percent
(slightly over $30 million). Colorado was the leading market area for lumber, log
homes, posts, poles, and log furniture, within-State sales accounting for 47 percent
of total sales. The other Four Corners States (Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah)
Table C13: Colorado’s sawmill residue factors, 2002 and 2007
(source: Morgan and others 2006).
Type of residue
2002
2007
----BDU/MBF lumber tallya----
Coarse
0.42
0.60
Sawdust
0.17
0.21
Planer shavings
0.13
0.09
Bark
0.29
0.14
Total
1.01
1.04
Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated
for every 1,000 board feet of lumber manufactured.
a
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 33
Table C14: Production and disposition of Colorado mill residues, 2007.
Residue type
Total utilized
Pulp and
board
Mulch/
bedding
Energy
Unspecified
use
Total
produced
Unused
----------------------------Bone-dry unitsa--------------------------------
Coarse
68,949
43,300
11,070
-
603
69,552
Fine
35,857
-
22,508
13,349
14,579
-
782
36,639
Sawdust
25,378
-
16,001
9,377
-
598
25,976
Planer shavings
10,479
-
6,507
3,972
-
184
10,663
Bark
15,596
-
9,916
5,564
116
195
15,791
Total
120,402
43,300
43,494
18,913
14,695
1,580
121,982
----------------------------Percentage of residue type--------------------------------
Coarse
99.1
62.3
15.9
-
21.0
0.9
57.0
Fine
97.9
-
61.4
36.4
-
2.1
30.0
Sawdust
97.7
-
61.6
36.1
-
2.3
21.3
Planer shavings
98.3
-
61.0
37.3
-
1.7
8.7
Bark
98.8
-
62.8
35.2
0.7
1.2
Total
98.7
35.5
35.7
15.5
12.0
1.3
a
Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.
Table C15: Destination and sales value of Colorado’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2007.
Product
Colorado
Other
4-Corner
States
Other
Rocky
Mtn Statesa
Far Westb
Northeastc
12.9
100
Southd
North
Centrale
Otherf
Total
------------------------------------------------Thousand 2007 dollars-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers and
other sawn products
$32,874
$7,380
$1,905
$200
$28
$1,165
$1,490
-
$45,042
House logs and log homes
9,929
3,581
656
304
274
3,588
1,128
-
19,460
Posts, poles, and log furniture
3,742
1,825
679
529
697
1,045
625
-
9,142
Other products
g
Total
2,383
5,886
2,898
4,701
386
7,913
3,800
2,186
30,153
$48,928
$18,672
$6,138
$5,734
$1,385
$13,711
$7,043
$2,186
$103,797
---------------------------------------Percentage of product sales by region-----------------------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers and
other sawn products
73.0
16.4
4.2
0.4
0.1
2.6
3.3
-
43.4
House logs and log homes
51.0
18.4
3.4
1.6
1.4
18.4
5.8
-
18.7
Posts, poles, and log furniture
40.9
20.0
7.4
5.8
7.6
11.4
6.8
-
8.8
7.9
19.5
9.6
15.6
1.3
26.2
12.6
7.2
29.0
47.1
18.0
5.9
5.5
1.3
13.2
6.8
2.1
Other productsg
Total
a
Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
b
Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
100
Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
c
South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
d
North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin.
e
Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the U.S.
f
g
Other products include excelsior, firewood, and mill residues.
accounted for about 18 percent of total sales; the majority of revenues were generated from sales of lumber and log home products. The Southern U.S. accounted
for over 13 percent of total sales, 18 percent of log home sales and 26 percent of
other products sales. The North Central States, Far West, and Northeast were major
market areas for other products, including excelsior and mill residues.
34
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
New Mexico
This chapter focuses on New Mexico’s timber harvest and forest products industry during 2007, and discusses changes that occurred since the 2002 industry
census conducted by Morgan and others (2006). Details of timber harvest, flow,
and use are followed by descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity
and utilization statistics, and mill residue characteristics. This chapter concludes
with information on New Mexico’s primary wood products industry sales.
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use
In 2003, New Mexico had approximately 4.4 million acres of nonreserved timberland (O’Brien 2003), with National Forests accounting for 64 percent, private
and tribal owners accounting for 33 percent, and other public agencies accounting for the remaining 3 percent (table N1). All private timberland was classified
as NIPF timberland. With the exception of several Native American tribes, New
Mexico had no large tracts of timberland owned by entities operating primary
wood processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on nonreserved timberlands was
estimated at 5.1 billion cubic feet or approximately 29.1 billion board feet Scribner
in 2008 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2009).
Timber Harvest
New Mexico’s 2007 commercial timber harvest was 39,770 MBF Scribner,
53 percent of the 2002 harvest, and 40 percent of the 1997 harvest (Morgan and
others 2006; Keegan and others 2001b). The reduction in New Mexico’s total
annual timber harvest since the late 1980s was primarily due to the decline of
National Forest timber harvest. As National Forest and total timber harvest in the
State declined, a disproportionate and diminishing share of New Mexico’s timber
harvest came from National Forest timberlands (table N2). In 1966, 1969, 1974,
and 1986 National Forests accounted for 50 percent or more of harvested volume
(Setzer and Wilson 1970; Setzer 1971c; Setzer and Barrett 1977; McLain 1989),
whereas in 2002 and 2007 National Forests accounted for 14 percent of the harvest volume (Morgan and others 2006). Unlike other States in the region where
National Forests provided the majority of house logs harvested, the majority of
each of the timber products harvested in New Mexico came from private and tribal
timberlands, and National Forests provided less than 20 percent of each product,
except the other products category, which was almost 40 percent from National
Forest (table N3). Sawlogs accounted for almost 83 percent (33 MMBF) of the
total volume harvested.
Table N1: New Mexico nonreserved timberland by ownership
class (source: O’Brien 2003).
Thousand acres
Percentage of
nonreserved
timberland
National Forest
2,810
64
Private and tribal
1,448
33
Ownership class
Other public
Total
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 146
3
4,404
100
35
Table N2: New Mexico timber harvest by ownership class, 1997, 2002 and 2007 (source: Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan
and others 2006).
1997
MBF
Scribner
Ownership class
Private and tribal timberland
2002
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
2007
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
85,903
88.0
64,201
86.3
33,001
83.0
Private
61,853
63.4
36,821
49.5
14,971
37.6
Tribal
24,050
24.6
27,380
36.8
18,030
45.3
Public timberland
11,723
12.0
10,160
13.7
6,769
17.0
National Forest
11,723
12.0
10,160
13.7
5,644
14.2
State timberland
All owners
-
-
-
-
1,125
97,626
100
74,361
100
39,770
2.8
100
Table N3: New Mexico timber products harvested by ownership class, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
Vigas
House logs
Other
productsa
All products
--------Thousand of board feet, Scribner---------
Tribal timberland
18,030
-
-
-
18,030
Private timberland
11,388
1,758
95
1,730
14,971
3,409
435
-
1,800
5,644
-
1,125
1,125
4,655
39,770
National Forest
State timberland
All owners
-
-
32,827
2,193
-----Percentage of harvested product by ownership------
Tribal timberland
54.9
-
Private timberland
34.7
80.2
National Forest
10.4
19.8
State timberland
All owners
95
82.5
100.0
-
45.3
37.2
37.6
-
38.7
14.2
-
-
24.2
5.5
0.2
11.7
2.8
100
Other products include posts, poles, furniture logs, fiber logs, and logs delivered to primary manufacturers
that became firewood.
a
In 2007, as in 2002, Otero County led New Mexico’s timber harvest with slightly more than 47 percent of total volume; Colfax and Sandoval Counties followed,
with 24 and 6 percent, respectively (table N4). Otero County has accounted for an
increasing share of New Mexico’s timber harvest, with 7 percent in 1966, 10 percent in 1986, 38 percent in 1997, and 42 percent in 2002. Historically, Rio Arriba
has been among the State’s top three timber-producing counties, accounting for
15 percent or more of annual harvest volumes until 2007 when it only contributed
4.4 percent. Colfax County, however, was not a significant contributor to New
Mexico’s annual harvest until 2007, only periodically accounting for more than 10
percent of harvest in previous censuses (Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989;
Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
Ponderosa pine continued to be the leading species harvested in New Mexico,
accounting for nearly 47 percent of the harvest in 2007; Douglas-fir retained its
long-held position as the second most harvested species (table N5). White and subalpine firs and Engelmann spruce together accounted for about 20 percent of the
2007 harvest. Ponderosa pine was the leading species harvested for sawlogs, vigas,
and house logs in 2007 (table N6). Douglas-fir and true firs were substantial components of the sawlog harvest, while Engelmann spruce was a minor component
36
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table N4: New Mexico timber harvest by county, selected years (sources: Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan and others
2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
County
1966
1986
1997
2002
2007
1966
1986
------------MBF Scribner-------------
Bernalillo
691
-
1997
2002
490
100
-
0.3
-
0.5
0.1
3.8
Catron
25,588
29,494
2,973
250
1,500
10.6
17.7
3.0
0.3
Cibola
-
13,857
7,973
15
-
-
8.3
8.2
a
Colfax
32,853
4,000
Eddy
-
Grant
538
Lincoln
-
Los Alamos
McKinley
2007
-------Percentage-------
-
18,450
3,777
9,423
13.6
2.4
18.9
548
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
663
-
-
279
0.2
0.4
-
-
0.7
198
-
1,800
-
0.9
0.2
-
4.5
a
-
-
-
-
-
2.0
-
-
1,450
54
-
-
-
-
36,692
-
2,000
-
-
15.1
5.1
23.7
Mora
957
3,830
2,040
10,864
215
0.4
2.3
2.1
14.6
0.5
Otero
17,335
16,982
36,866
30,825
18,835
7.2
10.2
37.8
41.5
47.4
Rio Arriba
37,156
69,367
17,107
17,869
1,733
15.3
41.7
17.5
24.0
4.4
Sandoval
66,619
5,932
4,360
1,200
2,190
27.5
3.6
4.5
1.6
5.5
San Juan
-
8,159
500
-
-
-
4.9
0.5
-
-
2,075
2,259
8,100
795
3.8
1.2
2.3
10.9
2.0
2,865
-
670
1,000
-
1.7
-
0.9
2.5
1,025
220
-
1.1
-
1.0
0.3
-
1,245
175
2,000
2.8
4.2
1.3
0.2
5.0
-
120
175
-
-
-
0.1
0.2
-
-
20
120
-
1.9
-
a
0.2
-
97,626
74,361
100
100
San Miguel
9,140
Santa Fe
-
Socorro
2,739
Taos
6,767
Torrance
Valencia
Total
b
7,066
4,548
242,313
166,342
a
Less than 0.05 percent.
b
Percentage detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
39,770
100
100
100
Table N5: New Mexico timber harvest by species, selected years (sources: Setzer and
Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
Species
1966
1986
1997
2002
2007
--------Percentage of harvest---------
Ponderosa pine
49
68
57
50
47
Douglas-fir
17
16
26
22
25
5
9
11
16
17
15
4
<0.5
2
8
14
3
7
10
3
100
100
100
100
True firsa
Other species
b
Engelmann spruce
All species
a
True firs include white and subalpine fir.
b
Other species include limber pine and aspen.
100
of house logs at 13 percent. Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir were also small
components of the viga harvest. Ponderosa pine was the leading species harvested
for other products, while aspen and other species were also significant components
to the other product category, which includes posts, poles, furniture logs, and fire
wood logs.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 37
Table N6: New Mexico timber harvest by species and product, 2007.
Species
Sawlogs
Ponderosa pine
Vigas
House
logs
14,334
1,416
9,283
379
White fir
6,699
170
Lodgepole pine
1,444
-
-
9
b
Engelmann spruce
All species
All products
-------Thousand of board feet, Scribner-------
Douglas-fir
Other species
Other
productsa
1,058
32,827
2,786
18,579
-
43
281
9,943
40
-
6,909
-
113
1,557
1,475
1,484
228
12
2,193
95
4,655
1,298
39,770
--------Percentage of product by species-------
Ponderosa pine
43.7
64.6
45.3
59.9
46.7
Douglas-fir
28.3
17.3
-
6.0
25.0
White fir
20.4
7.8
42.1
-
17.4
Lodgepole pine
4.4
-
-
2.4
3.9
Other speciesb
0.0
-
-
31.7
3.7
3.2
10.4
12.6
-
82.5
5.5
0.2
11.7
Engelmann spruce
All species
3.3
100
Other products include posts, poles, furniture logs, fiber logs, and logs delivered to primary manufacturers
that became firewood.
a
Other species include alligator juniper, Rocky Mountain juniper, two-needle pinyon, Western redcedar, and
Aspen.
b
Timber Flow
The vast majority (93 percent) of New Mexico’s 2007 timber harvest was processed in State; however, New Mexico was a net exporter of timber. Almost 3
MMBF were exported for processing in Colorado, while a small amount of timber
was imported from Colorado for processing in New Mexico (table N7).
Timber processors in New Mexico received 37,917 MBF of timber in 2007, including 1,125 MBF that was harvested outside the State. Timber receipts dropped
nearly 45 percent since 2002, when New Mexico mills received 68,858 MBF of
timber. Ownership sources of timber delivered to New Mexico mills changed
slightly since 2002, with the proportion from private and tribal lands decreasing
from 85 percent to 79 percent in 2007 (table N8). National Forests supplied timber
to 10—less than a half—of New Mexico’s mills in 2007, accounting for 18 percent
of mill receipts, which was an increase from 2002 when National Forests supplied
just 15 percent of the timber received by New Mexico mills. Unlike other States
in the region, National Forests did not provide New Mexico forest products manufacturers with a large portion of timber products, supplying less than 11 percent
of sawlogs, 26 percent of vigas, no house logs, but 60 percent of other products,
mostly post and poles and firewood logs to the industry in 2007 (table N9).
Timber Use
New Mexico’s 2007 timber harvest—approximately 10,813 MCF, exclusive of
bark (fig. N1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and outside
of New Mexico. Of this volume, 5,673 MCF went as logs to sawmills, 485 MCF
went to log home and viga manufacturers, and 4,655 MCF went to other plants,
38
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table N7: New Mexico timber products imports and exports, 2007.
Timber product
Imports
Net imports
(net exports)
Exports
-------Thousand board feet, Scribner-------
Sawlogs
-
1,548
(1,548)
House logs
-
15
(15)
Other products
a
All products
1,125
1,415
(290)
1,125
2,978
(1,853)
Other products include posts, poles, furniture logs, fiber logs, and logs delivered to primary
manufacturers that became firewood.
a
Table N8: Ownership of timber products received by New Mexico mills, 1997, 2002 and 2007 (sources: Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan
and others 2006).
1997
MBF
Scribner
Ownership class
2002
Percentage
of total
2007
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
Private and tribal timberland
82,238
90.6
58,698
85.2
30,023
79.2
Private
57,788
63.6
31,318
45.5
11,993
31.6
Tribal
24,450
26.9
27,380
39.8
18,030
47.6
8,562
9.4
10,160
14.8
6,769
17.9
National Forests
State Lands
-
All owners
-
90,800
-
100
68,858
-
1,125
100
37,917
3.0
100
Table N9: Timber received by New Mexico forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
Tribal timberland
Vigas
House logs
-
-
Private timberland
9,840
1,258
National Forest
3,409
435
-
All owners
All products
----------Thousand of board feet, Scribner----------18,030
State lands
Other productsa
31,279
-
18,030
80
815
11,993
-
2,925
6,769
-
-
1,125
1,125
1,693
80
4,865
37,917
-------Percentage of product by owner--------
Tribal timberland
57.6
-
-
47.6
Private timberland
31.5
74.3
100.0
16.8
31.6
National Forest
10.9
25.7
-
60.1
17.8
-
-
23.1
3.0
0.2
12.8
State lands
All owners
a
82.5
4.5
-
100
Other products include posts, poles, fiber logs, and logs delivered to primary manufacturers that became firewood.
including post, pole, log furniture, and excelsior manufacturers. The following
conversion factors were used to convert Scribner board foot volume to cubic feet:
• 5.75 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs;
• 5.17 board feet per cubic foot for house logs and vigas;
• 1.02 board foot per cubic foot for all other products.
Of the 5,673 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 2,600 MCF (46 percent) was
manufactured into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 114 MCF
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 39
New Mexico Timber Harvest and Flow, 2007
Total Harvest
10,813 MCF
Other plantsa
4,655 MCF
House log and viga
manufacturers
485 MCF
Sawmills
5,673 MCF
Utilized
residue
2,610 MCF
Utilized
residue
3,016 MCF
Unutilized
residue
1 MCF
Utilized
residue
227 MCF
Unutilized
residue
350 MCF
Shrinkage
114 MCF
Finished house logs
and log homes
306 MCF
Other products
4,427 MCF
Finished lumber and
other sawn products
2,600 MCF
a
Other plants include post, pole, bark, firewood, and excelsior manufacturers.
Figure N1: New Mexico timber harvest and flow, 2007.
Figure N1–New Mexico timber harvest and flow, 2007
40
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
was lost to shrinkage. The remaining 2,959 MCF (52 percent) yielded mill residue.
About 2,610 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized, and about 350 MCF (12 percent) remained unused. Of the 485 MCF of timber received by log home and viga
manufacturers, about 306 MCF (63 percent) was used for house logs, while the
remaining 179 MCF became mill residue. All of the 179 MCF of house log residue
was utilized. Of the 4,655 MCF of timber received by other manufacturers, about
4,427 MCF was utilized in solid wood products such as posts, poles, fuel wood,
log furniture, or was used in the production of excelsior. About 227 MCF of residues from these other sectors were utilized, and 1 MCF went unused.
Forest Industry Sectors
New Mexico’s primary forest products industry in 2007 consisted of 24 active
manufacturers in 12 counties (table N10). Facilities tended to be located near the
forest resource in north-central New Mexico and in Otero County (fig. N2). The
sawmill sector, manufacturing lumber and other sawn products, was the largest
sector operating during 2007, with 12 facilities—9 less mills than were operating
in 2002. Five facilities produced vigas and latillas, a decrease of three since 2002.
The number of other products manufacturers operating in 2007 remained at seven,
with one post and pole manufacturer, one log home producer, two bark product facilities, one firewood producer and two wood shaving/excelsior facilities. Keegan
and others (2001b) noted that two particleboard plants and a medium density fiberboard (MDF) facility operated in New Mexico in 1986. One particleboard plant
closed in the early 1990s, the MDF plant closed in 1996, and the particleboard facility operating in 1997 was deemed inoperable in 2002 and was thus not included
in the current analysis.
Primary wood products sales as well as the number of producers continued to
decrease, with finished product sales in 2007 falling 51 percent since 2002 (table N11). The overall drop in sales was due to the dramatic decrease in sawmilling
Table N10: Active New Mexico primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2007
(sources: McLain 1989; Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
County
Lumber
Vigas and latillas
Bernalillo
Catron
1
Colfax
1
Grant
Othera
Total
1
1
1
1
Lincoln
2
3
1
2
1
1
Mora
1
Otero
2
Rio Arriba
1
San Miguel
2
1
3
Sandoval
1
1
2
Santa Fe
2
1
Taos
1
1
2
2007 Total
12
5
7
24
2002 Total
21
8
7
36
1997 Total
22
15
7
44
1986 Total
26
5-10
10
41-46
a
1
2
4
1
3
Other products include posts, poles, log homes, firewood, and bark products.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 41
Figure N2: Map of New
Mexico facilities.
sales but also in the viga and latilla sectors. Among other products, sales increased
15 percent since 2002. In 1997 and in 2002, lumber accounted for 74 percent of
total wood product sales but in 2007 it was only 49 percent. In 2007, sales from
other product manufacturers accounted for 39 percent of finished products sales
versus nearly 17 percent of sales in 2002.
Sawmill Sector
With the net loss of nine sawmills since 2002, total lumber production in New
Mexico dropped 51 percent from about 81.5 MMBF in 2002 to less than 40 MMBF
in 2007; most of the State’s lumber production shifted to mills producing less than
10 MMBF annually by 2007 (table N12). Closure of those nine mills caused average annual lumber production to fall 15 percent from 3.9 MMBF to 3.3 MMBF per
mill (table N13). In 2007, the State’s six largest sawmills produced an average of
6.4 MMBF, accounting for 97 percent of lumber production in New Mexico. The
remaining 6 mills had an average annual lumber production of less than 204 MBF
42
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table N11: Finished product sales of New Mexico’s primary wood products,selected years (sources: McLain
1989; Miller Freeman, Inc. 1998; Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
Product
1986
Lumber and sawn products
2002
2007
$114,881
$53,122
$38,941
$12,616
4,453
12,555
5,225
3,149
Vigas and latillas
Other products
1997
----Thousand 2007 dollars----
5,566
5,744
8,804
10,102
$124,900
$71,421
$52,970
$25,867
a
Totalb
a
Other products include posts, poles, log homes, log furniture, and bark products.
b
All sales are reported f.o.b. the manufacturer’s plant.
Table N12: New Mexico sawmills by production size class, selected years (sources: Setzer and
Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan and others 2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
Year
Under 10 MMBFa
Over 10 MMBFa
Total
-------------------Number of sawmills----------------
2007
12
c
12
2002
18
3
21
1997
18
4
22
1986
17
9
26
1966
58
6
64
1962
85
c
85
1960
117
c
117
---Percentage of lumber output---
Volume (MBFb)
2007
c
c
2002
12
88
39,823
81,515
1997
10
90
108,675
1986
12
88
232,000
1966
38
62
262,848
1962
c
c
242,500
1960
c
c
224,400
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber
tally.
a
b
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
In 1960, 1962 and 2007 all mills were included in <10 MMBF to avoid disclosing individual
operations.
c
per mill (table N14). The continued declines in New Mexico’s sawmill sector were
a direct result of decreasing timber harvests in the State; however, the implementation of restoration and hazardous fuel reduction treatments in the State could spur
a recovery of the sawmill sector (Fiedler and others 2002).
On average, New Mexico sawmills produced approximately 1.28 board feet of
lumber for every board foot Scribner of timber processed in 2007. Overrun averaged 26 percent in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006). The slight overrun increase
from 2002 to 2007 was likely due to the increased proportion of lumber production
by larger mills, which typically are more efficient and use smaller logs, and saw a
larger proportion of dimension and stud wood. In 2007, lumber produced by New
Mexico’s sawmills consisted of: 63 percent dimension and studs, 35 percent timbers, and 2 percent board and shop lumber and cants. Dimension lumber accounted
for $6.3 million (50 percent) of sawmill product sales in 2007, timbers were about
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 43
Table N13: Number of New Mexico sawmills and average
lumber production, selected years (sources: McLain 1989;
Setzer and Wilson 1970; Keegan and others 2001b;
Morgan and others 2006).
Number of
sawmills
Year
Average
production
per mill
MMBFa
2007
12
3.3
2002
21
3.9
1997
22
4.9
1986
25
9.2
1966
64
4.1
1962
85
2.9
1960
117
1.9
a
MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.
Table N14: New Mexico lumber production by mill size, 2007.
Number
of mills
Size classa
Percentage
of total
Volume
Average per mill
MBFb
Over 1 MMBF
6
Under 1 MMBF
Total
MBFb
38,600
97
6,433
6
1,223
3
204
12
39,823
100
3,319
a
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber tally.
b
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
$5.9 million (48 percent), and board and shop lumber and cants accounted for $285
thousand (2 percent).
Viga and Latilla Sector
New Mexico’s viga and latilla sector continued to contract between 2002 and
2007. Three fewer viga and latilla manufacturers were identified in 2007 than
in 2002, and sales dropped by more than $2 million (40 percent). In 2007, the
five firms remaining in the sector processed 2,412 MBF Scribner of timber versus 3,393 MBF processed in 2002 (Morgan and others 2006). At just over 828
thousand lineal feet of vigas and latillas produced in 2007, production dropped
substantially from 2002 when more than 1 million lineal feet were produced. The
continued contraction of the sector in 2007 emphasized the reversal of the previous
decade’s sector growth noted by Keegan and others (2001b). However, because
of the part-time nature of many viga and latilla operations, the sector may again
show increased production and sales in the future if demand for traditional styles
of construction should increase and if sufficient timber were available.
Other Products Sector
The same mills generally produced other primary wood products in 2007 as
in 2002; no new facilities opened during this 5-year period. Product sales by
44
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
manufacturers of posts, poles, log homes, fire wood, bark and mulch, and wood
shavings producers exceeded $10 million in 2007; this was an increase of almost
14 percent over the period. Inflation-adjusted sales from the sector were about
$8.8 million in 2002. Additional detail about the sector is withheld to protect the
confidentiality of firm level information.
Capacity and Utilization
New Mexico’s annual lumber production capacity was 67,425 MBF in 2007.
Sawmills produced 39,823 MBF of lumber and utilized about 59 percent of their
production capacity. Across all industry sectors, total timber-processing capacity
was 61,941 MBF Scribner. Accounting for changes in log inventories, a total of
36,803 MBF Scribner was processed by New Mexico firms in 2007, with total
timber-processing capacity utilization about 59 percent. Sawtimber-processing
capacity was 170,000 MBF Scribner in 1997, with 48 percent utilized (Keegan
and others 2001b). In 2002, sawtimber-processing capacity fell to 88,162 MBF
Scribner, with 65,116 MBF Scribner (74 percent) utilized (Morgan and others
2006). Decreased capacity and capacity utilization in the sawmill sector resulted
from the permanent closure of large sawmills, which were operating well below
capacity in 2002.
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses
In 1997, Arizona’s lone paper mill and the particleboard plant in New Mexico
were the largest consumers of mill residues generated in New Mexico. As previously indicated, the paper mill shifted to using recycled material and the particleboard plant closed, thus affecting residue utilization and other aspects of timberprocessing in New Mexico and Arizona. Sawmills, New Mexico’s leading timber
processors, were the main residue producers in the State. Sawmills had to develop
new markets for their residues, utilize more of the residues in-house, or consider
cutting production to avoid generating more residue than could be disposed of affordably. The lack of outlets for mill residues also negatively impacted the ability
of sawmills to process small-diameter timber (Fiedler and others 2002), which
typically creates more residue per unit of lumber produced.
During 2007, New Mexico mills produced 42,896 BDUs (approximately 5,820
MCF) of mill residue with 91.4 percent being utilized (table N15). Both residue
production and the proportion utilized decreased from 2002, when New Mexico
sawmills generated 9,120 MCF, utilizing 95.7 percent (Morgan and others 2006).
New Mexico’s drop in residue utilization between 2002 and 2007 signaled a reversal of the long-term trend of increased residue utilization noted by Keegan and others (2001b) and was largely attributable to closure of the particleboard plant and
changes at the Arizona paper mill. The decrease in total residue volume generated
was due to two factors: a substantially smaller volume of timber being processed
and sawmills creating fewer residues per unit of lumber produced. In 1997, sawmills produced about 1.22 BDUs per MBF of lumber; by 2007 that residue factor
had dropped to 1.03 BDUs per MBF of lumber (table N16).
Coarse residue (chips) was the State’s largest residue component at 54.5 percent
(23,367 BDU) of all residues in 2007, with 100 percent utilized. Energy facilities used about 22,369 BDUs of the coarse material, with the remaining utilized
volume going to unspecified uses (table N15). Fine residues—sawdust and planer
shavings—comprised the second largest component at 23.4 percent (10,032 BDU)
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 45
Table N15: Production and disposition of New Mexico mill residues, 2007.
Total
utilized
Residue type
Pulp and
board
Mulch/
bedding
Energy
Unspecified
use
Total
produced
Unused
----------------------------Bone-dry unitsa--------------------------------
Coarse
23,359
-
8
23,367
6,562
-
-
6,562
-
3,470
10,032
Sawdust
3,862
-
-
3,862
-
3,470
7,332
Planer shavings
2,700
-
-
2,700
-
-
2,700
Bark
9,294
-
291
9,003
Total
39,215
-
22,660
15,565
Fine
22,369
-
990
203
9,497
3,681
42,896
----------------------------Percentage of residue type--------------------------------
Coarse
100.0
-
95.7
65.4
-
-
65.4
52.7
-
-
52.7
100.0
-
-
Bark
97.9
-
Total
91.4
-
Fine
Sawdust
Planer shavings
a
990
Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.
-
0.0
54.5
-
34.6
23.4
-
47.3
17.1
100.0
-
-
3.1
94.8
-
2.1
22.1
52.8
36.3
2.3
8.6
100.0
4.2
6.3
Table N16: New Mexico sawmill residue factors, 1997, 2002 and 2007 (source: Keegan
and others 2001b; Morgan and others 2006).
Type of residue
1997
2002
2007
------BDU/MBF lumber tallya--------
Coarse
0.52
0.56
0.58
Sawdust
0.29
0.20
0.17
Planer shavings
0.18
0.15
0.06
Bark
0.23
0.21
0.22
Total
1.22
1.12
1.03
Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated for every 1,000
board feet of lumber manufactured.
a
of mill residues. Only 65.4 percent of fine residue was utilized in 2007, primarily
as mulch and animal bedding. Bark accounted for 22.1 percent of all residues and
was largely used for mulch, with 9,294 BDUs (98.0 percent) utilized in 2007.
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales
Sales from New Mexico’s primary wood products industry in 2007 totaled
slightly over $26 million, including finished products and mill residues (table N17).
Lumber, mine timbers, and other sawn products accounted for 48 percent ($12.6
million) of total sales; other products and mill residues accounted for 40 percent
($10.3 million); while vigas and latillas accounted for 12 percent ($3.1 million).
New Mexico was the leading market area for vigas, latillas, and other products,
accounting for 86.8 percent of viga and latilla sales and 40.7 percent of other products sales. The other Four Corners States (Arizona, Colorado, and Utah) as well as
New Mexico accounted for 46 percent of lumber sales, and other areas (outside the
United States) mostly Mexico accounted for more than 35 percent.
46
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table N17: Destination and sales value of New Mexico’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2007.
New
Mexico
Product
Lumber, mine timbers and other
sawn products
Vigas and latillas
Other products
g
Total
Other
4-Corner
States
Other Rocky
Mtn Statesa
Far Westb
North
-eastc
Southd
North
Centrale
Otherf
Total
------------------------------------------Thousand 2007 dollars------------------------------------------------$4,035
$1,804
2,733
316
$1,080
$1,080
-
$161
-
-
-
-
100
-
4,207
3,136
1,210
1,288
-
415
81
$10,975
$5,256
$2,290
$2,368
-
$676
$81
$4,456
$12,616
-
3,149
$4,456
10,337
$26,102
---------------------------------Percentage of product sales by region-----------------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers and other
sawn products
32.0
14.3
8.6
8.6
-
1.3
-
35.3
48.3
Vigas and latillas
86.8
10.0
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
12.1
Other products
40.7
30.3
11.7
12.5
-
4.0
0.8
-
39.6
42.0
20.1
8.8
9.1
-
2.6
0.3
17.1
100.0
g
Total
a
Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
b
Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
c
South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
d
e
North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the United States.
f
g
Other products include posts, poles,log homes, log furniture, bark products, firewood, and mill residues.
Utah
This chapter focuses on Utah’s timber harvest and forest products industry during 2007. Details of timber harvest, flow, and use are followed by descriptions of
the primary processing sectors, capacity and utilization statistics, and mill residue
characteristics. The chapter concludes with information on primary wood products industry sales by Utah mills. Comparisons to previous years are provided
where possible. Limited historical information is available about timber harvesting and mill production and residues in Utah. The last comprehensive study of the
State’s industrial roundwood production and mill residues was conducted in 2002
(Morgan and others 2006), and data for previous years include 1966 (Setzer and
Wilson 1970), 1969 (Setzer 1971d), 1970 (Green and Setzer 1974), 1974 (Setzer
and Throssell 1977b), and 1992 (Keegan and others 1995).
Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use
In 2008, Utah had approximately 4.1 million acres of nonreserved timberland
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2009) with National Forests accounting for
73 percent, private and tribal owners accounting for 18 percent, and other public
agencies accounting for the remaining 9 percent (table U1). All private timberland
was classified as NIPF timberland. Utah had no large tracts of timberland owned
by entities operating primary wood processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on
nonreserved timberlands was estimated at 4.8 billion cubic feet or approximately
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 47
Table U1: Utah nonreserved timberland by ownership class
(source: Forest Inventory and Analysis program, 2008).
Thousand acres
Percentage of
nonreserved
timberland
2,982
73
Private and tribal
727
18
Other public
387
9
4,096
100
Ownership class
National Forest
Total
Table U2: Utah timber products harvested by ownership class, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
House logs
Other
productsa
All products
--------------Thousand board feet, Scribner-------------------
National Forests
8,666
5,660
1,164
15,490
Private and tribal timberland
8,679
1,690
1,301
11,669
Other public
330
b
All owners
17,675
7,350
2,832
3,162
5,296
30,321
----Percentage of harvested product by ownership---
National Forests
49.0
77.0
22.0
51.1
Private and tribal timberland
49.1
23.0
24.6
38.5
1.9
-
53.5
10.4
58.3
24.2
17.5
Other publicb
All owners
a
Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, and poles.
b
Other ownership class includes BLM and State.
100
24.8 billion board feet Scribner in 2008 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, FIDO
2009).
Timber Harvest
Utah’s 2007 commercial timber harvest was 30.3 MMBF Scribner (table U2), 27
percent less than the 2002 harvest of approximately 41 MMBF Scribner (Morgan
and others 2006), and 51 percent less than the 1974 harvest of 62 MMBF (Setzer
and Throssell 1977b). The decrease in Utah’s total annual timber harvest since
1992 was largely due to the decline in National Forest timber harvest. In 1966 and
1970, National Forests accounted for 94 and 88 percent, respectively, of harvested volume (Setzer and Wilson 1970; Green and Setzer 1974). In 1992, National
Forest timber accounted for almost 50.0 MMBF (77 percent) of the annual harvest
(Keegan and others 1995); in 2007 the agency provided only 15.5 MMBF (51
percent). As in most of the Western States, decreasing Federal timber harvests
have led to greater shares of annual timber harvest coming from other ownership
sources. National Forests still provide the majority of the State’s harvest, but the
volume and proportionate share supplied by private and tribal owners continues to
increase. During 2007, private and tribal landowners accounted for 38.5 percent
(11.7 MMBF) of Utah’s timber harvest, about the same percent as in 2002. National
Forests provided the majority (77 percent) of house logs harvested in 2007, but
among sawlogs and other products (e.g., furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, poles,
and industrial fuelwood) private timberlands and National Forests were evenly
split—each providing slightly less than 50 percent (table U2). Sawlogs accounted
48
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Table U3: Utah timber harvest by county, selected years (sources: Setzer and Throssell 1977b; Keegan and others
1995; Morgan and others 2006).
County
1974
1992
2002
2007
1974
--------MBF Scribner---------
1992
2002
2007
---------Percentage---------
Beaver
155
2,952
633
468
0.2
4.6
1.5
1.5
Cache
1,389
175
1,180
1,150
2.2
0.3
2.9
3.8
Carbon
260
100
1,670
1,564
0.4
0.2
4.0
5.2
Daggett
3,193
2,850
375
-
5.1
4.4
0.9
-
-
-
135
-
-
-
0.3
-
2,539
1,767
3,469
1,793
4.1
2.7
8.4
5.9
45
284
0.4
-
0.1
0.9
8.4
10.4
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
250
-
Garfield
8,502
7,047
3,446
3,141
13.6
10.9
Grand
5,000
-
20
1,925
8.0
-
a
6.3
Iron
-
1,435
773
1,554
-
2.2
1.9
5.1
Juab
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
-
Kane
6,480
13.4
0.2
Millard
30
Morgan
11
Piute
440
Rich
2,159
1
4,117
5,520
-
60
342
-
25
250
150
620
3,288
500
-
3,000
-
10.4
6.4
a
-
0.8
-
a
a
0.6
0.5
0.7
1.0
8.0
1.6
3.5
-
7.3
-
Salt Lake
-
-
65
59
-
0.2
0.2
San Juan
5,000
4,503
1,444
1,865
8.0
7.0
3.5
6.2
Sanpete
520
3,750
2,468
3,800
0.8
5.8
6.0
12.5
Sevier
715
3,663
1,703
1,483
1.1
5.7
4.1
4.9
Summit
5,589
10,000
4,107
2,700
8.9
15.5
10.0
8.9
Uintah
14,652
16,624
2,715
1,398
23.5
25.7
6.6
4.6
323
793
-
0.8
2.6
3,750
4,300
2.6
4.5
9.1
14.2
375
1,334
-
-
0.9
4.4
Utah
Wasatch
20
-
1,606
2,908
-
-
Washington
-
a
Wayne
3,905
2,110
110
-
6.3
3.3
0.3
-
Weber
50
20
60
-
0.1
a
0.1
-
Total
a
62,465
Less than 0.05 percent.
64,666
41,268
30,321
100
100
100
100
for about 58 percent (17.6 MMBF) of the total volume harvested in 2007, house
logs were 24 percent, and other products accounted for about 18 percent.
In 2007, Wasatch County led Utah’s timber harvest, with 14 percent (4.3 MMBF
Scribner) of total volume; Sanpete and Garfield Counties followed with 13 and
10 percent, respectively (table U3). In 2002, Kane and Summit Counties led the
harvest with 5.5 MMBF (13 percent) and 4.1 MMBF (10 percent) of the harvest,
respectively (Morgan and others 2006).
Spruces, including Engelmann and blue spruce, were the leading species harvested in Utah, accounting for 42 percent (12.6 MMBF) of the harvest in 2007
(table U4). Aspen and cottonwood accounted for 29 percent, lodgepole pine for
13 percent, Douglas-fir accounted for 11 percent while ponderosa pine only accounted for 3 percent of harvest. In 2002, spruce was the leading species harvested,
accounting for 44 percent, while lodgepole accounted for 23 percent (Morgan and
others 2006). During the 1960s and 1970s, ponderosa pine was the leading species
harvested, accounting for 30 to 50 percent of the harvest; while lodgepole pine
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 49
Table U4: Proportion of Utah timber harvest by species, selected years (sources: Setzer and Wilson 1970;
Setzer 1971d; Setzer and Throssell 1977b; Keegan and others 1995; Morgan and others 2006).
Species
1966
1969
Engelmann spruce
1992
2002
2007
19
13
22
35
44
42
c
c
4
5
10
29
18
18
27
46
23
13
3
11
8
4
8
11
50
43
33
5
13
3
4
7
3
5
2
2
6
8
3
c
c
c
100
100
100
100
100
Aspen and cottonwood
Lodgepole pine
Douglas-fir
Ponderosa pine
True firsa
Other species
1974
---------------Percentage of harvest----------------
b
All species
100
a
True firs include white, subalpine, and corkbark fir.
b
Other species include juniper and hardwoods.
Less than 0.5 percent.
c
Table U5: Utah timber harvest by species and product, 2007.
Species
Sawlogs
House logs
Other productsc
All products
---------------Thousand board feet, Scribner-------------
Engelmann spruce
6,517
5,635
455
12,607
Aspen and cottonwood
5,122
6
3,601
8,730
Lodgepole pine
1,430
1,372
1,187
3,989
Douglas-fir
2,953
276
31
3,260
Ponderosa pine
1,016
55
10
1,080
631
6
11
648
5
0
1
6
17,675
7,350
5,297
30,321
True firs
a
Other speciesb
All species
------------Percentage of product by species-------------
Engelmann spruce
36.9
76.7
8.6
41.6
Aspen and cottonwood
29.0
0.1
68.0
28.8
Lodgepole pine
Douglas-fir
8.1
18.7
22.4
13.2
16.7
3.8
0.6
10.8
5.7
0.7
0.2
3.6
0.2
2.1
Ponderosa pine
True firs
3.6
a
Other speciesb
d
All species
58.3
0.1
-
d
24.2
d
17.5
100
a
True firs include white, subalpine, and corkbark fir.
b
Other species include juniper and hardwoods.
Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, and poles.
c
d
Less than 0.1 percent
and spruces each accounted for 15 to 25 percent (Setzer and Wilson 1970; Setzer
1971d; Green and Setzer 1974; Setzer and Throssell 1977b).
Spruces were the leading species harvested for sawlogs and houselogs in 2007,
accounting for 6.5 and 5.6 MMBF (37 and 77 percent), respectively (table U5).
Aspen and cottonwood accounted for slightly more than 3.6 MMBF (68 percent)
of the volume harvested for other products. Lodgepole pine was the leading component of house logs (19 percent) and of other products (22 percent).
50
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Timber Flow
The majority (83 percent) of Utah’s 2007 timber harvest was processed in-State;
however, Utah was a net exporter of almost 2.9 MMBF of timber. About 5.2 MMBF
were exported for processing in Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Arizona; while
2.3 MMBF were imported for processing in Utah from Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, and as far away as Oregon and Canada (table U6).
Timber processors in Utah received 27,470 MBF of timber in 2007, including
2,336 MBF that was harvested outside the State. Private and tribal timberlands
provided 11,587 MBF (42 percent) of the timber delivered to Utah mills in 2007
(table U7). National Forests provided 56 percent (15,502 MBF) of timber receipts,
with more than half (14) of Utah’s timber processors receiving timber cut from
National Forests. In 2002, Utah mills received 18 percent more timber. National
Forests supplied 67 percent (21,898 MBF) of the timber in 2002, and private and
tribal owners supplied 28 percent (9,241 MBF). During 2007, National Forests
provided Utah timber processors with 68 percent of house logs, 54 percent of sawlogs, and 52 percent of other timber products including fiber logs, furniture logs,
and posts, and poles (table U8). NIPF and tribal landowners provided 45 percent
of sawlogs, 32 percent of houselogs, and 46 percent of other timber products. State
lands provided less than 1 percent of the timber received by mills in Utah.
Timber Use
Utah’s 2007 timber harvest—approximately 7,082 MCF, exclusive of bark
(fig. U1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and outside of
Utah. Of this volume, 3,459 MCF went as logs to sawmills, 1,842 MCF went to log
home manufacturers, and 1,781 MCF went to other plants, including post, pole,
Table U6: Utah timber products imports and exports, 2007.
Timber product
Imports
Exports
Net imports
(net exports)
---Thousand board feet, Scribner---
Sawlogs
House logs
Other products
a
All products
1,433
200
1,233
432
1,275
(843)
471
3,712
(3,241)
2,336
5,187
(2,851)
Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, posts,
and poles.
a
Table U7: Ownership of timber products received by Utah mills, 1992, 2002 and 2007 (sources: Keegan and others 1995; Morgan and
others 2006).
Ownership class
1992
MBF Scribner
2002
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
2007
Percentage
of total
MBF
Scribner
Percentage
of total
Private and tribal timberland
11,341
19.3
9,241
28.4
11,587
42.2
Public timberland
46,927
79.9
23,245
71.5
15,732
57.3
National Forest
46,595
79.3
21,898
67.3
15,502
56.4
332
0.6
1,346
4.1
230
0.8
State lands
Other owners
All owners
a
a
485
58,753
0.8
100
Other owners include the BLM, Canada, and (for 1992) unknown owners.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 33
32,518
0.1
152
100
0.6
27,470
100
51
Table U8: Timber received by Utah forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2007.
Ownership class
Sawlogs
House logs
Other
productsb
All products
---------------Thousand board feet, Scribner-------------
Private and tribal timberland
8,579
2,062
946
11,587
Public timberland
10,229
4,444
1,058
15,731
National forest
9,999
4,444
1,058
15,501
State lands
Other owners
230
100
a
All owners
18,908
-
-
6,506
230
52
152
2,056
27,470
------------Percentage of product by owner-------------
Private and tribal timberland
45.4
31.7
46.0
42.2
Public timberland
54.1
68.3
51.5
57.3
National forest
52.9
68.3
51.5
56.4
1.2
-
-
0.5
-
2.5
68.8
23.7
7.5
State lands
Other owners
a
All owners
a
Other owners include the BLM and Canada.
b
Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, and poles.
0.8
0.6
100
log furniture, and excelsior manufacturers. The following conversion factors were
used to convert Scribner board foot volume to cubic feet:
• 4.81 board feet per cubic foot for house logs;
• 5.15 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs;
• 2.05 board foot per cubic foot for all other products.
Of the 3,459 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 1,640 MCF (47 percent) was
milled into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 69 MCF was lost
to shrinkage. The remaining 1,750 MCF (51 percent) yielded mill residue. About
1,715 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized, and about 35 MCF (2 percent) remained unused. Of the 1,842 MCF of timber received by log home manufacturers,
about 1,106 MCF (60 percent) was processed into house logs, while the remaining
736 MCF became mill residue. About 684 MCF of house log residue was utilized,
and about 52 MCF remained unused. Of the 1,781 MCF of timber received by
other manufacturers, about 1,773 MCF was utilized as solid wood products such
as posts, poles and log furniture. About 7 MCF of residues from these other sectors
were utilized, and 1 MCF went unused.
Forest Industry Sectors
Utah’s primary forest products industry in 2007 consisted of 27 active manufacturers in 13 counties (table U9). Facilities tended to be located near the forest
resource along the mountainous central spine of the State (fig. U2). Changes in
Utah’s industry structure over the past 25 years were similar to those experienced
throughout the West, with the number of sawmills decreasing and the number and
diversity of other manufacturers increasing (Keegan and others 1995, 2001 a,b;
Morgan and others 2004 a,b; Morgan and others 2006). The sawmill sector (manufacturing lumber and other sawn products) was the largest, and included 12 mills
in 2007; 10 facilities produced house logs and log homes and there were five log
52
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Utah Timber Harvest and Flow, 2007
Total Harvest
7,082 MCF
Other plantsa
1,781 MCF
House log and log
home manufacturers
1,842 MCF
Sawmills
3,459 MCF
Utilized
residue
1,715 MCF
Unutilized
residue
52 MCF
Utilized
residue
2,406 MCF
Unutilized
residue
1 MCF
Utilized
residue
7 MCF
Unutilized
residue
88 MCF
Shrinkage
69 MCF
Finished house logs
and log homes
1,106 MCF
a
Other products
1,773 MCF
Finished lumber and
other sawn products
1,640 MCF
Other
plantsU1:
include
furniture,
and
excelsior
manufacturers.
Figure
Utah log
timber
harvest
and
flow, 2007.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 53
Table U9: Active Utah primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2007 (sources:
Keegan and others 1995; Morgan and others 2006).
County
Lumber
Log homes and
house logs
Log furniture and
other productsa
Total
Beaver
1
1
2
Cache
2
1
3
Duchesne
2
Garfield
1
1
Iron
1
1
Morgan
1
Salt Lake
1
Sanpete
1
3
1
2
1
Summit
1
3
Uintah
3
5
5
Utah
1
Wasatch
1
2
Weber
1
2007 Total
12
2002 Total
23
1992 Total
34
a
3
2
1
10
5
27
14
12
49
13
4
51
Other products include posts, poles, and bark products.
furniture producers operating in 2007. Morgan and others (2006) identified 49 primary wood-processing plants in 2002, including 23 sawmills, 14 house log plants,
10 log furniture producers, one post and pole firm, and a decorative bark producer.
In 1966 there were 50 active sawmills in the State (Setzer and Wilson 1970).
The number of producers, and primary wood products sales decreased between
2002 and 2007. Finished product sales ($27,332,000—adjusted for inflation) in
2007 were about 30 percent lower than 2002 sales, (table U10). This overall decrease was coupled with a substantial decline in lumber and log home sales while a
slight increase was noted in other product sales. Lumber sales were down $6.5 million, and log home manufacturers sales decreased around $6 million; however the
sales of other products increased by about $875 thousand over the 2002 totals. In
2007, lumber sales accounted for less than 30 percent of finished product sales,
versus 40 percent in 2002 and 73 percent in 1992; house logs and log homes accounted for about the same in 2002 and 2007 (55 percent) of sales. Other product
sales nearly doubled to 15 percent in 2007 compared to 8 percent of total sales in
2002.
Table U10: Finished product sales of Utah’s primary wood products sectors, 1992,
2002 and 2007 (sources: Keegan and others 1995; Morgan and others 2006).
Sector
1992
Sawmills
Log homes
Other sectorsa
Total
b
2002
2007
---Thousands of 2007 dollars---
b
$27,389
$14,628
$8,114
9,208
21,007
15,053
982
3,290
4,165
$37,579
$38,925
$27,332
Other sectors include producers of posts, poles, and log furniture. Mill residues,
firewood, mulch, and bark products not included for comparison to previous years.
a
b
54
All sales are reported f.o.b. the manufacturer’s plant.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Figure U2: Map of Utah
facilities.
Sawmill Sector
Utah’s sawmill sector has been in decline for several decades. Lumber production in 2007 was 14 percent lower than in 2002, 64 percent lower than in 1992
and 68 percent lower than in 1966, while the number of mills declined 48, 32,
and 54 percent over the same periods (table U11). Most of the production loss
was among the State’s larger mills that produced more than 1 MMBF of lumber
annually, while the greatest loss of milling facilities was among the small mills.
The proportion of lumber production by large versus small mills has increased
with larger mills contributing 94 percent of the production, but the average annual
lumber production per mill has returned to the 1992 level (table U12). Average annual lumber production among the State’s five largest mills was about 4.3 MMBF
lumber tally in 2007 (table U13), compared to 3.8 MMBF among six mills in
2002.The remaining 7 small mills had an average lumber production of 182 MBF
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 55
Table U11: Utah sawmills by production size class, selected years (sources: Setzer and Wilson
1970; Keegan and others 1995; Morgan and others 2006).
Year
Under 1 MMBFa
Over 1 MMBFa
Total
-----------------Number of sawmills------------------
2007
7
5
12
2002
17
6
23
1992
25
9
34
1966
37
13
50
---Percentage of lumber output---
Volume (MBFb)
2007
6
94
22,892
2002
13
87
26,524
1992
13
87
63,637
1966
10
90
72,000
a
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.
b
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
Table U12: Number of Utah sawmills and average
lumber production, selected years (sources: Setzer and
Wilson 1970; Keegan and others 1995; Morgan and
others 2006).
Year
Number of
sawmills
Average production
per mill
MMBFa
2007
12
1.9
2002
23
1.2
1992
34
1.9
1966
50
1.4
a
MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.
Table U13: Utah lumber production by mill size, 2007.
Number
of mills
Size classa
Over 1 MMBF
Under 1 MMBF
Total
Percentage
of total
Volume
Average per mill
MBF
MBFb
b
5
21,621
94
4,324
7
1,271
6
182
12
22,892
100
1,908
Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber
tally.
a
b
MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
in 2007, compared to the 2002 average production of 204 MBF at 17 small mills
(Morgan and others 2006).
On average, Utah sawmills produced approximately 1.20 board feet of lumber
for every board foot Scribner of timber processed. This average overrun of 20 percent in 2007 contrasts sharply with the 2002 overrun of 28 percent (Morgan and
others 2006). The decrease in overrun over the past 5 years indicates a possible
shift in products manufactured, smaller and lower quality logs utilized, or that few
sawmills in Utah have invested in improved milling technology.
56
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Sales from sawmills accounted for just 30 percent ($8.1 million) of Utah timber
processors’ finished products sales in 2007. This proportion of sales from sawmills
was the smallest of the Four Corners States. Sales from sawmills accounted for
more than 56 percent of sales in Arizona, 49 percent of sales in New Mexico and
more than 45 percent in Colorado during 2007. Board and shop lumber accounted
for almost $4.5 million (55 percent) of sawmill product sales in 2007; dimension
lumber and studs accounted for almost $2.4 million (30 percent), timbers and cants
accounted for $1.2 million (14 percent); and other sawn products accounted for the
balance (<1 percent) of finished product sales from sawmills.
Log Home Sector
Sales value from Utah’s log home sector decreased over the past 5 years. This
sector lost facilities during the period with 10 house log manufacturers identified in
2007—four less than in 2002. Only firms that processed timber and manufactured
house logs or log homes, not log home distributors, were included in the 1992,
2002, and 2007 censuses. In 2007, Utah’s 10 log home manufacturers processed
7.3 MMBF of timber, produced about 6.2 MMLF of house logs, and generated
about $15 million in product sales. By sales value, Utah’s log home sector is the
fourth largest in the Western United States behind Montana, Idaho, and Colorado.
Other Products Sectors
A significant decrease occurred in the number of facilities among Utah’s other
products sectors, with less than half as many facilities operating in 2007 than in
2002; however, sales of the other products sector was greatly increased from 2002.
There were five other product facilities in 2007 that produced log furniture and
post and poles. Sales of posts, poles, and log furniture totaled almost $4.2 million
in 2007. Additional detail about the sector is withheld to protect the confidentiality
of firm level information.
Capacity and Utilization
Utah’s annual sawmill lumber production capacity was 46.5 MMBF in 2007.
Sawmills produced 22.9 MMBF of lumber and utilized 49 percent of their lumber
production capacity. This was the lowest level of sawmill production capacity utilization for all the Four Corners States in 2007. Timber-processing capacity among
Utah sawmills was 39,172 MBF Scribner, with 18,945 MBF Scribner of timber
processed, making utilization of timber-processing capacity among sawmills about
48 percent in 2007. Such low levels of capacity utilization often signal the closure
of mills and this was no exception for Utah, which saw the closure and out-ofState relocation of its second largest sawmill during 2003. Across all industry sectors, total timber-processing capacity was 60,062 MBF Scribner. Accounting for
changes in mills’ log inventories, a total of 26,371 MBF Scribner was processed
by Utah firms in 2007, making timber-processing capacity utilization about 44 percent across all sectors.
Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses
Across all sectors, Utah timber processors produced 27,645 BDU (approximately 2,654 MCF) of mill residue, with 87 percent being utilized (table U14). Total
residue production declined slightly from 3,288 MCF in 2002, and the proportion utilized decreased slightly from 89 percent (Morgan and others 2006). Utah’s
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 57
Table U14: Production and disposition of Utah mill residues, 2007.
Total
utilized
Residue type
Pulp and
board
Mulch/
bedding
Energy
Unspecified
use
Total
produced
Unused
----------------------------Bone-dry unitsa--------------------------------
Coarse
10,534
-
2,050
-
8,484
2,412
12,946
Fine
9,281
-
4
6,833
2,444
223
9,504
Sawdust
5,306
-
4
3,280
2,022
148
5,454
Planer shavings
3,975
-
3,553
422
75
4,050
Bark
4,281
-
4
3,726
551
914
5,195
Total
24,096
-
2,058
10,559
11,479
3,549
27,645
-
----------------------------Percentage of residue type--------------------------------
Coarse
81.4
-
15.8
Fine
-
65.5
18.6
46.8
97.7
-
0.0
71.9
25.7
2.3
34.4
Sawdust
97.3
-
0.1
60.1
37.1
2.7
19.7
Planer shavings
98.1
-
-
87.7
10.4
1.9
14.7
Bark
82.4
-
0.1
71.7
10.6
17.6
18.8
Total
87.2
-
a
Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.
7.4
38.2
41.5
12.8
100
decreased residue production resulted from decreased timber volumes processed,
while residue utilization remained constant and was attributable to the evolution
of better uses for residue-related products, especially bark and coarse residues.
Sawmills, the leading timber processors, were also the main residue producers in
Utah, producing 1.0 BDU of residue per MBF of lumber in 2007 (table U15).
Coarse residue was the State’s largest residue component at 46.8 percent (12,946
BDU) of all residues in 2007, with 81.4 percent utilized. In-State facilities used
8,484 BDU of the coarse material for unspecified uses, with the remaining utilized
volume going to energy. Fine residues—sawdust and planer shavings—comprised
the second largest component at 34.4 percent (9,504 BDU) of mill residues. More
than 97 percent of fine residue was utilized in 2007, primarily as mulch or animal
bedding, with about one-fourth of fine residues going to unspecified uses. Bark
accounted for 19 percent of all residues and was largely used for mulch or unspecified uses, with 4,281 BDU (82 percent) utilized.
Table U15: Utah sawmill residue factors, 1992, 2002 and 2007 (source: Keegan and others
1995; Morgan and others 2006).
Type of residue
1992
2002
2007
------BDU/MBF lumber tallya--------
Coarse
0.56
0.48
0.44
Sawdust
0.19
0.19
0.21
Planer shavings
0.06
0.10
0.15
Bark
0.28
0.21
0.20
Total
1.09
0.98
1.00
Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated for every 1,000 board feet
of lumber manufactured.
a
58
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Primary Forest Products Markets and Sales
Sales from Utah’s primary wood products industry during 2007 totaled nearly
$28.6 million, including finished products and mill residues (table U16). House
logs and log homes accounted for 56 percent (more than $16 million) of total sales;
lumber, mine timbers, and other sawn products accounted for about 33 percent
(almost $9.6 million); while other products and mill residues accounted for 10 percent (nearly $3 million). Utah was the leading market area for lumber, log homes,
posts, poles, and log furniture, with in-State sales accounting for almost 35 percent of total sales. The other Four Corners States (Arizona, Colorado, and New
Mexico) accounted for about 32 percent of total sales, with log homes accounting
for 74 percent of sales in the region. The South accounted for 13 percent of total
sales, with log homes accounting for 82 percent of sales to the South. Following
Utah, the North Central area was a major market area for lumber and other sawn
products.
Table U16: Destination and sales value of Utah’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2007.
Product
Utah
Lumber, mine timbers, and other sawn
products
House logs and log homes
Other products
g
Total
Other
4-Corner
States
Other
Rocky Mtn
Statesa
Far
Westb
Northeastc
Southd
North
Centrale
$3,803
$2,166
$76
4,469
6,732
1,000
200
$111
$445
$2,959
-
$9,560
600
3,032
-
40
16,073
1,614
191
51
51
338
230
486
$9,886
$9,089
$1,127
$251
$1,049
$3,707
$3,445
$40
2,961
$28,594
---------------------------------Percentage of regional sales by product----------------------------------------38.5
23.8
6.7
10.6
12.0
85.9
House logs and log homes
45.2
74.1
88.7
79.7
57.2
81.8
-
Other products
16.3
2.1
4.5
20.3
32.2
6.2
34.6
31.8
3.9
0.9
3.7
13.0
Total
Total
------------------------------------------Thousand 2007 dollars-------------------------------------------------
Lumber, mine timbers, and other sawn
products
g
Otherf
-
-
33.4
100.0
56.2
14.1
-
10.4
12.0
0.1
100
a
Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
b
Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
c
South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
d
North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin.
e
Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the United States.
f
g
Other products include posts, poles, log furniture, mill residues, firewood, mulch, and bark products.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 59
References
Fiedler, C.E., C.E. Keegan, S.H. Robertson, T.A. Morgan, C.W. Woodall, and J. Chmelik.
2002. A strategic assessment of fire hazard in New Mexico. Report submitted to National
Joint Fire Sciences Program, Boise, ID. 27 p.
Green, A.W. and T.S. Setzer 1974.The Rocky Mountain timber situation, 1970. Resour.
Bull. INT-10. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 78 p.
Keegan, C.E., A.L. Chase, T.A. Morgan, S.E. Bodmer, D.D. Van Hooser, and M. Mortimer.
2001a. Arizona’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis 1998. Missoula: The
University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 20 p.
Keegan, C.E., A.L. Chase, T.A. Morgan, S.E. Bodmer, D.D. Van Hooser, and M. Mortimer.
2001b. New Mexico’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis 1997. Missoula:
The University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 24 p.
Keegan, C.E., K. Gebert, A.L. Chase, T.A. Morgan, S.E. Bodmer, and D.D. Van Hooser.
2001c. Montana’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis 1969-2000. Missoula:
The University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 67 p.
Keegan, C.E., D.P. Wichman, and D.D. Van Hooser. 1995. Utah’s forest products industry:
a descriptive analysis, 1992. Resour. Bull. INT-RB-83. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21 p.
Lockwood-Post. 2008. 2008 Lockwood-Post’s directory of the pulp, paper and allied
trades. San Francisco, CA: Lockwood-Post. 515 p.
Lynch, D.L. and K. Mackes. 2001. Wood use in Colorado at the turn of the twenty-first
century. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-32. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 23 p.
McLain, W.H. 1985. Colorado’s industrial roundwood production and mill residue, 1982.
Resour. Bull. INT-35. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station. 13 p.
McLain, W.H. 1988. Arizona’s timber production and mill residue, 1984. Resour. Bull.
INT-55. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 16 p.
McLain, W.H. 1989. New Mexico’s timber production and mill residue, 1986. Resour. Bull.
INT-59. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 17 p.
Morgan, T.A., T. Dillon, C.E. Keegan, A.L. Chase and M.T. Thompson. 2006.The Four
Corners timber harvest and forest products industry, 2002. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-7.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. 64 p.
Morgan, T.A., C.E. Keegan, T. Dillon, A.L. Chase, J.S. Fried, and M.N. Weber. 2004a.
California’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-615. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 54 p.
Morgan, T.A., C.E. Keegan, T.P. Spoelma, T. Dillon, A.L. Hearst, F.G Wagner, and L.T.
DeBlander. 2004b. Idaho’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis. Resour.
Bull. RMRS-RB-4. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station. 31 p.
O’Brien, R.A. 2003. New Mexico’s forests, 2000. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-3. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
117 p.
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages [QCEW]. 2004. U.S.Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly census of employment and wages. www.bls.gov/
cew/home.htm. (October 2004).
60
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012
Random Lengths. 2008. Big book 2008: the buyers and sellers directory of the forest products industry. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 1024 p.
Regional Economic Information System [REIS]. 2004. U.S.Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional accounts data. www.bea.gov/bea/regioanl/
data.htm. (October 2004).
Setzer, T.S. 1971a. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues, Arizona,
1969. Res. Note INT-130. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p.
Setzer, T.S. 1971b. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues, Colorado,
1969. Res. Note INT-131.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p.
Setzer, T.S. 1971c. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues, New Mexico,
1969. Res. Note INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p.
Setzer, T.S. 1971d. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues, Utah and
Nevada, 1969. Res. Note INT-135. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p.
Setzer, T.S. and M.K. Barrett. 1977. New Mexico timber production and mill residues,
1974. Res. Note INT-231.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.
Setzer, T.S. and D.G. Shupe. 1977. Colorado timber production and mill residues, 1974.
Res. Note INT-232.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.
Setzer, T.S. and T.S.Throssell. 1977a. Arizona timber production and mill residues, 1974.
Res. Note INT-230.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.
Setzer, T.S. and T.S.Throssell. 1977b. Utah timber production and mill residues, 1974.
Res. Note INT-234. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p.
Setzer, T.S. and A.K. Wilson. 1970. Timber products in the Rocky Mountain States, 1966.
Resour. Bull. INT-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 93 p.
Silver v. Thomas 924 F.Supp. 976 (D. Ariz. 1995).
Spencer, J.S. and T.O. Farrenkopf. 1964. Timber products output in Colorado, Wyoming,
and western South Dakota, 1962. Res. Pap. INT-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2009. Forest Inventory Data Online
(FIDO) [Database]. FIDO version 1.3 1r1. Washington, DC. http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/
fido/index.html. (10 April 2010).
Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 1965-2008. Statistical yearbook of the
Western lumber industry. Portland, OR: Western Wood Products Association.
Wilson, A.K. and J.S. Spencer, Jr. 1967.Timber resources and industries in the Rocky
Mountain States. Resour. Bull. INT-7. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 67 p.
USDA Forest Service Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. 2012 61
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information
and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the
forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of
the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and
private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.
Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range,
forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation,
community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use
economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases.
Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found
worldwide.
Station Headquarters
Rocky Mountain Research Station
240 W Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
(970) 498-1100
Research Locations
Flagstaff, Arizona
Fort Collins, Colorado
Boise, Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Bozeman, Montana
Missoula, Montana
Reno, Nevada
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Rapid City, South Dakota
Logan, Utah
Ogden, Utah
Provo, Utah
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital
status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political
beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s
income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)
should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write to: USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410. Or call toll-free at
(866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English
Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal
opportunity provider and employer.
www.fs.fed.us/rmrs
Federal Recycling Program
Printed on Recycled Paper